dumb

I've got a few flaws to point out.

True the average time to graduate college is increasing, but this has nothing to do with the number of AP exams taken. It's more on the lines of why SAT scores are dropping. Does this mean that students are stupider? Not nessasarily. It's because more kids are taking the SAT than ever before. Kids with a "C" average that wouldn't have even thought about college 20 years ago are now being pushed to take the SAT and go to college. I am guessing that it is these kids who are taking longer in college. Also with the rising cost of tuition, it may not be financially possible to finish in 4 consecutive years.

And please, spare me the anecdotes about someone you know taking 4 AP classes in high school and not graduated college after nearly 7 years. Nobody wants to hear about that.

As for grading high schools based on salaries of graduates, that is ridiqulously absurd. There are far too many other factors that determine salary levels. Drug dealers, plumbers, construction workers, even garbage men make more money than most teachers. Is a school that produces more construction workers better than a school that produces more teachers? And how about if a large percentage of your class moves out of state within 10 years of graduation? Cost of living, and income vary greatly in different parts of the country. How do you compare the salaries of the class members living in NYC, to those living in Memphis, to those that never left their hometown? How about in some parts of the country where the local economy is tied to a single corporation, or a plant or factory that hires a large percentage of graduates from a certain high school. If that company relocates, or closes, etc supply and demand and other market forces will probably drive down the average salary of that town. Does this mean that the school just got worse? At the very best, all you can hope to accomplish looking at salaries is how good was the school 10 years ago. In those 10 years there could be redistricting, and any number of changes within the school.

I just don't see how looking at salaries 10 years after graduation means anything to how good a school is now (or even 10 years ago).

sure a school can give more AP tests, but it doesn't mean anything if the percentage of students receiving 3s or higher is going down... which that list doesn't seem to be accounting for. a better measure would be to have a crazy BCS type formula that takes into account the number of *passing* AP tests per graduating student, average SAT score, average "prestige" score of the college the student attends, percent of students that go to college, percent that go to college on academic scholarship, percent of the graduation class named avram, etc, etc, etc...

I agree with "h." With that said, I think you should realize that my method of looking at income is just one factor of many that could be looked at. Avram, I was not advocating simply looking at salaries to see how good the school is, but rather comparing the actual salaries against the salaries that students in that school "should" earn. By doing this, you are creating a CONTROL, which is absolutely neccesary in any statistical analysis. The control in this case is the "expected income." Av, you attacked my method of analysis, but did not mention any of your own. Does this mean that you agree with the rankings utilizing the AP test as an accurate measurement of how good a school is?

well, their ranking equation is clearly flawed if u look at the skool that came in 1st. some skool in...Alabama?

i s'pect them dont speak english in them parts.

ranking high schools, especially nationally is very difficult. if one wanted to do it, i guess the equation should take into account student performance on standardized exams relative to the school district's tax base/resources & perhaps graduation rate. and the schools of course would have to be categorized & ranked against schools of comparable student body size. this is probably the closest thing to an objective rubric. but still isnt amazing.

things like performance on ap exams, where the students attend college, and post-grad income are irrelevant and full of confounding factors. so many that i dont even care to mention them.

I agree with Sarath that post grad income and what college students attend is irrelevant to the quality of a high school education.

Trevor I don't see how on Earth you plan on figuring what a student from a particular school "should" earn. You talk about creating a CONTROL, but a control is only a control if every other variable remains the same so you can test if the independent variable (high school) actually effects the dependant variable (income). I do not believe that high school and income have a cause and effect relationship, and I don't even think they would be strongly correlated. There are at least 20 other factors that I think would correlate to future income stronger than high school attended.

If we were talking about ranking schools for the purpose of comparing them to those of our friends for "bragging rights" or whatever then things like standardized test scores, class size, tax base, etc. may be factors to consider.

But that is not what this list is about. This list is about ranking high schools for college admissions considerations. In those terms, college admissions officers when evaluating a HS are looking for how well does this high school prepare it's students for college. To be in an AP class, the school is basically saying that the student has mastered the subject beyond the high school guidelines and is ready to study that subject on a level close to the college level. If a school offers AP classes in many subjects, and has many students in those classes, that actually does say things about the school. It says the school is doing it's job in making sure the students have a general high school level of mastery of those subjects and is allowing them to study at a post-high school level.

If a school has 75% of 12th graders taking AP classes, even if only 50% of those taking AP classes take the actual AP exam, and of those the average score is less than 3, this is still a good thing for the school. It means the school has done it's job in teaching so many students enough to master those subjects on the high school level. Now maybe this school is doing poorly in teaching AP classes, but they are teaching the high school level classes more than sufficiently if so many students are taking AP classes.

For a national ranking I don't think SAT or ACT scores can be used because of certain regional tendencies towards taking one test or the other. Also the price of the exam would skew results because richer students would be more likely to take the test than pooerer students.

Some states have standardized test that ALL students must take, but nothing like this on a national level. For example, MD has state assessment tests that are taken by every student after English 9, Bio, Algebra, Geometry, and US Govt. These tests can surely impact state by state rankings, but in terms of showing a mastery of high school subjects and a preparedness for college, I think AP class participation DOES mean something in terms of national high school rankings for consideration of college admission.

Av... so, you are telling me that people taking AP classes means something as far as college admissions is concerned? Well, I think many people would consider that important, including yourself apparently. I do believe that this emphasis on "college admissions" is a major flaw in our society. People encourage/force their kids to do a myriad of activities/jobs/ass-kissing/going to the best school/taking a load of AP classes so that they can get into their "dream college." Well, what happens during/after college. Suddenly mom and dad arent there anymore to push junior and he parties too much, loses sight of his goals, and either doesnt work hard in college or fails out. We've all been there. Its part of our culture, afterall. By pushing children excessively hard in highschool, always pushing them to conform and succeed on some standardized test, or pushing them to excel in some AP class we are actually doing more harm than good. What happened to teaching children to enjoy learning. We've all had those teachers... the ones that open our eyes to the learning process by going outside the box and teaching new things with new methods. These are the teachers that get us really excited about learning. But forcing children through highschool, making take the "hardest class possible" is clearly not the best thing for them. Honestly, how much can you really learn, and appreciate in a shortened senior year AP class. How many of you really feel like you gained more from an AP class than you would have taking painting, or chorus, or doing an internship or any of the other things you could have done with that time. How many of you took AP classes in highschool, and got to college only to realize that you hadn't learned nearly enough to prepare you for college? Avram, how many AP classes did you take, and how well did that help you in college? Without a doubt, the most important thing I learned in college, that has helped me after college, was the ability to learn on my own. I mean really learn on my own and push myself to work and study hard with nothing else to gain other than the information I was studying. I honestly wish I had learned this "studying ability" in highschool, but there simply wasnt enough time for me to be taught that, because I was too busy doing stupid activities and taking AP classes so that I could get admitted into college.

Yes, AP class participation may have something to do with college admissions (maybe... you still haven't proven it with concrete evidence), but also, in my opinion, the extra emphasis on AP class participation is hurting an enourmous amount of students by discouraging them from pursuing other avenues of learning that would enhance their overall ability to succeed in life. In other words, AP class participation may increase your chances of being admitted to college, but I believe that AP class participation decreases your chances of having a successful/happy life, and thus, is a poor indicator for the ranking of highschools.

And now... avram's equally long retort:

Why are you so obsessed with money? That is clearly evident by your post.

Excellent ideas. I wouldn't weight the student's actual performance against the expectations for their socioeconomic background, but against a national average. In your scenario, a school that molds $70k students may get a lower score than a school that gleans $50k adults. Also, a school that graduates a mere 75 kids a year and one just happens to be a Bill Gates will skew the results. Perhaps factors such as the college the kids get accepted into and non-monetary achievements by the students after school - such as prizes, awards, discoveries, records, publications, patents and offices held are incorporated.

And I think we all know how I feel about Newsweek. Good day to NOT go golfing today.

yeah, golf would have sucked today. Anonymous, you are a wuss for not putting your name. I am an american, of course I am obsessed with money. Is not the american dream "rags to RICHES?" It doesn't say anything about "rags to self-indulgent-moralistic-know-it-all." What, are you some sort of communist?

One of my biggest concerns, and this trails back to a conversation I had with the Dean of the Business School at Maryland, Howard Frank, is grade inflation. Whether at the High School or College level, higher grades lead to higher GPA's; better acceptance rates to more and better colleges and employment rates to more and better jobs; leading to greater credentials and prestige for the grade inflating school, higher salaries for its graduates and greater donations back to the school.

The unnamed school I attend now, if a class of 20 students concludes with 15 A's and 5 A-'s, even if all the students did all the reading and classwork required and at a high proficiency? If this grading breakdown is the rule and not the exception?

In response to Post (9), I think the beauty of the American Dream is that it allows each of us to define it for ourselves. If your goal is to become rich, you will probably reach it, but will that truly make you a happier person? In any case, all the best. I hope that it works out for you, and you don't sacrifice something more meaningful along the way...

Anon... you clearly are not someone I know well, because if you were you would know that I am a man with a huge amount of dreams and aspirations. I do not merely want to become rich. Sure, it'd be nice. But my dream is first to become a dentist and help my patients get out of pain. Secondly, I dream of getting into politics and helping others through political means. Finally, I would love to be happy in every way possible. I just felt like I should clarify this before people start picturing me like Scroodge McDuck, swimming through my piles of money in my giant vault.

Sounds like you are already a politician, so you can cross that one off your list.

ok let's see if i can keep this under a hundred gajillion words.

trevor, your idea is on the right track, but doesn't take into account enough factors. the most important thing you did was neutralize the class structure problem, because obviously a kid from, y'know, baltimore (the city that reads) would have a much tougher time getting a high-paying job than would a kid from, say, anywhere else in america.

the issue with your method is that a salary does not necessarily relate to how well your high school prepared you. many people become teachers, work for non-profits, etc ... they might not be paid a lot but they are in a situation that they wanted to be in and their high school experience helped them get there.

here's what i would do. 10 years after, determine how many out of each graduating high school class did the following:

1. Educational

a) went to college b) graduated college c) continued their education after college

2. Sociological

a) have had issues with drugs/alcohol b) have contracted, y'know, "those" diseases c) have been arrested for somehting other than traffic violation

3. Career

a) have recieved a promotion where they work b) manage people c) own their own business d) average salary

obviously this is pretty skeleton, but you get the idea. THEN, weight those responses against the average income of families with kids in the school. That's my plan.

And yeah, i went to Wootton, and i'll say this. the method they use here is totally bogus, but is cheap and easy to do, and people sure do love ranking things. it's a media report, not an actual study.

I would just like to say that the biggest factor in school quality is student to teacher ratio. More teachers = more individual time for students = better learning. Of course, if we are talking about standardized testing and rote memorization of topics, then maybe what I say isn't true. But I feel that high school is about learning to learn. We all have different paths before us. With more attention we can be better led to what we are interested in.

#7 Anonymous

what is wrong with that? Those Volkwagens don't go on faith, y-know.

samantha

Trevor

vbvbbbwbe2bwb43bw5rdbb