http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/education/in-best-high-schools-lists-numbers-dont-tell-all.html
In Lists of Best High Schools, Numbers Don’t Tell the Whole Story
By MICHAEL WINERIP
New York Times
Published: June 3, 2012

...

What schools score highest on Newsweek’s index? Of the top 50, 37 have selective admissions or are magnet schools, meaning they screen students using a combination of entrance exam scores, grade-point average, state test results and assessments of their writing samples.

In short, to be the best, high schools should accept only the highest performing eighth graders, who — if the school doesn’t botch it — will become the highest performing 12th graders.

Put another way: Best in, best out, best school.

Eight of Newsweek’s top 50 are charter schools. For those who think an important role of public education is taking struggling students and raising their academic performance, this sounds promising. Charter schools are supposed to accept any child who applies. If the school is oversubscribed, there is to be a lottery.

What could be more democratic?

The two top charter schools on the Newsweek list are the Basis high schools in Scottsdale and Tucson, part of an Arizona-based charter chain.

According to the Basis Web site, the curriculum is heavily reliant on A.P. and college-level courses, and it includes Mandarin and Latin.

This means that only the strongest academic students need apply, and those who can’t cut it will leave.

...

I personally hate these rankings. My DH teaches at one of these "best of the best" schools and in my opinion the school is highly dysfunctional.

There is a pervasive attitude that the kids have to be perfect. They have to take a full schedule of all AP courses, which leaves them little to no room to explore other interests, electives, arts or anything else that might develop their human side, as opposed to just their intellect. Anything less than perfect grades = failure. The kids are pushed into extra tutoring, test prep courses and even athletic trainers so that they can be the best. (Yes, at sports, too!)

Although some students thrive in this atmosphere, many others do not. Over the years, DH has had several of his students hospitalized for what would have been called in the old days a "nervous breakdown." Some of their parents even came to the teachers and asked for assignments to be brought to the hospital so their kids wouldn't fall behind. Can you imagine? The pressure to be perfect also leads to cheating and a whole lot of begging for points once grades come out. Parents will come in and insist that their kids deserve a higher grade than they earned.

Of course, that part doesn't make the newspapers . . .

Are there a lot of incredible opportunities at the school? Absolutely! Would I send my own kids there? I'm not so sure. That's something we discuss at home often. Are the opportunities worth the potential cost?

IMHO, there has to be a better way of judging a school's worth than the formulas in the newspaper.

Your post reminds me of a recent short story about high school students striving to be admitted to selective colleges:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/06/honors-track/8986/
Honors Track
By MOLLY PATTERSON
The Atlantic
June 2012

This is incorrect. Charter schools in many states are allowed to have selection criteria; the one my DD attended had them. There is then a lottery from those kids who meet the selection criteria (btw, the application also wanted us to specify what preschool our kid went to and what volunteer skills we could offer). They also have a great deal of leeway to push kids out who are not doing well at the school. This continues to happen at the school DD used to attend--they basically will not serve kids with LDs. They actually mentioned this on the tour, though they didn't put it quite that baldly. Not coincidentally, their test scores are quite high.

Oh, sorry, I see that the author actually is setting up a straw man by saying that! Yeah, obviously, it isn't true.

The Newsweek list has been the subject of much discussion in my area and the long and short of it is that is a joke. The schools that regularly send kids to the top colleges, the same schools with most of the NMSFs, the same schools that rock the AMC tests - these schools are not on the list.

I would not send my DD to such a school. Perfectionism is a problem (and one she already has), not a goal.


I ignore any such rankings, because individual results may vary. Besides, there's a lot more to an education than test scores.

This list is kind of silly, but I am sure it does a great deal to sell magazines and hype someone's feelings. I'm in Austin's camp. My HS (granted I went there 20 yrs ago) was ranked on their "Public Elite" list as recently as 2 years ago. This list seems to have been tossed away in favor of a new formula. It is now middle of the pack per the formula, as are some of the other prior "Public Elite" schools (or they aren't listed at all). I know nothing substantial about my former HS has changed in the last 2 years, or really the last 20.

But to the larger question, what are the metrics for an outstanding HS? Scores? 100% graduation? Teacher-student ratio? Getting into any college? Getting into an Ivy? Noteworthy alum? Academics? Student satisfaction/happiness?

No formula illustrates the true picture, as much as publications would like us to buy in.

Remember that in many cases, the formula looks at the percentage of students who take AP-- not the pass rate. As long as the school has a lot of kids in those most challenging classes, it doesn't matter if they pass or fail or even whether they take the AP tests at all. Just being in the class raises the rating for the school. On the one hand, I'm all for encouraging kids to be challenged, especially as preparation for college. On the other hand, I have seen kids pushed into classes they can't handle simply because they have AP in front of the title.

The article

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/e...nts-describe-rationale-for-cheating.html
Stuyvesant Students Describe the How and the Why of Cheating
By VIVIAN YEE
New York Times
September 25, 2012

describes such an environment at Stuyvesant. The short story I linked to upthread also concerned cheating, although at a neighborhood high school. I have written many messages about getting into selective colleges, but I had better talk to my children about ethics when they are older and not put too much pressure on them to get into school X.

I kind of flipped back and forth with respect to cheating in high school.

Sometimes I cheated to win and sometimes I let people cheat off of me without cheating off of them (meaning that I tied one hand behind my GPA back, so to speak).

I had a US History class where I never did the homework, which was always lame worksheets. I'd sit down at my desk and copy off my friend before class. She sat right by the door, and sometimes the teacher would walk in, look down, see what we were up to, and walk right on by without missing a beat. It wasn't usually just me copying, either... sometimes I think she was the only one in the class who actually did the homework. This was an AP class. It was the only AP subject in which I got a 5 on the test, so obviously there was no harm.

In Trig/Pre-calc, I used to store formulas in the programming area of my graphing calculator. And then I'd almost never use them, because the very process of keying them into the calculator cemented them in my memory.

So.... there's cheating, and then there's cheating.

I do find it instructive that we're sending children to these pressure-packed environments, where they learn to discard their ethics entirely, and that this path is the fast-track to Harvard and Yale, which are the fast-track to political leadership and CEO positions. Yet, we wonder why we are where we are as a society.

It's because we're collectively stupid.

Cheating always caused me chronic guilt and self-hatred where I would try to destroy my academic career as punishment.

Well, students who cheat their way through high school certainly don't discard the practice afterwards. Why would they? It's a proven winner.

I've been appalled at what some of my DD's friends think of as "not-really-cheating"-- and these are the "good" kids. They cheat to get A's, not because they "need" to do so.

Because it's evil and makes you a horrible person?

But evil people never see themselves as evil, and horrible people never see themselves as horrible.

Final score:
Cognitive Dissonance - 1
Self Awareness - 0

But what about the complete depravity of mankind?

We're all debased and evil!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity

"Total depravity is the fallen state of man as a result of original sin. The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are by nature not inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, but rather all are inclined by nature to serve their own will and desires and to reject the rule of God. Even religion and philanthropy are wicked to God to the extent that these originate from a human imagination, passion, and will, and are not done to the glory of God. Therefore, in Reformed theology, if God is to save anyone He must predestine, call, or elect individuals to salvation since fallen man does not want to, and is indeed incapable of choosing God.[4]

Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition. Thus, even acts of generosity and altruism are in fact egoist acts in disguise. All good, consequently, is derived from God alone, and in no way through man.[5]

This idea can be illustrated by a glass of wine with a few drops of deadly poison in it: Although not all the liquid is poison, all the liquid is poisoned. In the same way, while not all of human nature is depraved, all human nature is totally affected by depravity."

See, you're doing it wrong. It goes, "Everyone is debased and evil... except me!"

Or more precisely:

I am a good person.
You are alright.
He/she has some issues.
They are totally evil.

Do people really have that much of a problem admitting that they are bad?

Let's try logic.

I cheated.
People who cheat are evil.
Therefore I am evil and deserve punishment for my crimes against God.

That was easy.

I am evil and deserving of punishment.

I don't think that good or bad is the point. People mostly behave as they've been taught to behave, and their environment teaches them what's acceptable. Most people are also unwilling to rock the boat. Sometimes people don't have much choice about rocking the boat. For example, if you have people to feed, and effectively everyone is doing whatever it is you object to, you can't always afford to rock the boat.

So if you're working at some financial services-type place and everyone in the industry says that handing out mortgages to people without requiring proof of income is really great!!! and that turning junk mortgages into mortgage-backed securities is really great!!!, most people will go along with it. Some because they think that this stuff really is great. Others because they don't want to speak up even though they don't agree.

Obviously, the situation is more complicated than this, but the basic idea is there.

I thought you generally needed some sort of underlying worldview or metaphysic to determine appropriate moral action.

Otherwise, you are using other people and/or environment as your model, which doesn't really get you anywhere absent some sort of overarching framework because you have no way to evaluate what you *should* be doing because you have no objective yardstick, so to speak.

Everything you wrote depends on an individual's definition of "should be doing." Every person's worldview is heavily influenced by other people. You could argue that "school" or "the church" or "the law" are objective yardsticks, but all of these things come from people: the books are written by people, the words are spoken by people, and the ideas come from people, not from the institutions per se. And they all vary everywhere you go, according to people's different ideas and beliefs. So, no objectivity there. IMO, there is no objective yardstick. We all have to figure it out for ourselves (ideally by keeping the rights of others in mind at all times, but that's just my personal outlook).

"Mom/Dad and my teachers taught me to do whatever is necessary to 'get ahead' to get money and status. This has worked for me so far, so it must be what I should do. If I sell just a small number of bogus mortgages today, I won't be really causing a lot of damage but I'll make a lot of money. Besides everyone else is doing it, so it must be okay. "

"Mom/Dad and my teachers taught me to do whatever is necessary to 'get ahead' to get money and status. This means that I should do whatever is necessary to get an A on that take-home exam. The exam says I have to do it by myself, but this class is supposed to be a gut class and this exam is hard!!! That's not fair, so it's totally okay if I work with other students. And I should be doing whatever I can get get ahead. "

"Mom/Dad and my school taught me that I should be taking classes because I'm interested in learning about the subject, and that 'getting ahead' by any means possible can lead to serious problems. It says here that I have to do this take-home exam by myself. I should do it alone so that my grade reflects what I've learned. Besides, getting caught cheating would be way worse than getting a bad grade on this test. "

"Mom/Dad and my school taught me that if I do things that break laws, rules, or instructions from trusted authority figures, Howler monkeys will invite themselves to my home for a Karma party in my skanky honor, even if I do get immediate satisfaction from my malfeasance. I would NOT like Howler monkeys. Ergo, my exam should be my own work, since that is what the teacher said to do."


The world would be a MUCH better place with more Howler monkeys.

The question is what actions are good, what actions are neutral, and what actions bring in the Howler Monkeys.

Because we all get weighted in the scales whether we believe in them or not.

Just like gravity.

You don't get a choice when it comes to gravity.

Reality isn't a democracy.

And we defend against the truth because the truth is catastrophic (as in mathematical catastrophe theory).

Ain't life fun?

New York Magazine has a longer story, featuring the Stuyvesant ringleader's rationalizations.

http://nymag.com/news/features/cheating-2012-9/
Cheating Upwards
Stuyvesant kids do it. Harvard kids do it. Smart kids may especially do it. But why?
By Robert Kolker
September 16, 2012

From the article:

"The prime offender, they say, is the increased emphasis on testing. Success in school today depends not just on the SAT, but on a raft of federal and state standardized ­exams, often starting as early as fourth grade and continuing throughout high school. More than ever, those tests determine where kids go to college—and most kids believe that in an increasingly globalized, competitive world, college, more than ever, determines success. (A weak economy only intensifies the effect.) Carol Dweck is a Stanford psychology professor. Her research shows that when people focus on a score rather than on improvement, they develop a fixed idea of their intellectual abilities. They come to see school not as a place to grow and learn, but as a place to demonstrate their intelligence by means of a number."

I like the explanation that school is a place to "demonstrate their intelligence by means of a number."

This was precisely how I viewed college/law school.

I wasn't there to learn and grow, I was there to prove that I was inherently better than everyone else.

That didn't turn out so well.

I can say that I don't recommend that approach.

[quote=JonLaw]
I like the explanation that school is a place to "demonstrate their intelligence by means of a number."
[quote]

Unfortunately, in the legal world, this is how many big firms view it as well. My own experience bore this out. I had a horrible 2nd semester in my first year at law school where I earned my first and only "C"s in my academic career. This dragged down my GPA to 0.2 below the magic threshold where law firms would consider you for summer internships. The career counselors advised me to only apply to second tier firms. I barely managed to get a summer job at the last minute. My second year in law school, I had better grades. I pulled my GPA up by 3-4 points (don't recall the exact number anymore). I had tons of interviews and had people treat me completely differently. Seriously, the only significant difference was my GPA. Sad but true, numbers count.

Hi everyone - let's try to stay on topic here.