Immigrants (and other groups which have reservations about the dominant culture in public schools) use private schooling for similar purposes in many countries. I think this is one more reason why having university admissions settled by objective, transparent examinations is such a good idea.
There are a number of Japanese public schools in my region. There is also at least one school for Koreans descended from South Korea, one for Koreans descended from North Korea, one for Brazilians, one private school which is primarily used by parents who think the public school curriculum has gone soft ("They NEVER would have let students out on Saturday back when I was a kid! How do you expect them to learn like this?!"), and two or three religiously affiliated private schools.
There are a number of academic and cultural reasons to choose the private schools over the public schools. As you may have heard, Japan has historically had issues with acceptance of people from non-dominant cultures. If you go to the Catholic school, you don't have to actively hide the fact that your first name is Tomas (as in, Saint) rather than Taro, which at least one lad who goes to my church is forced to do to avoid teasing at a public school.
So how to judge the private school Tomases versus the public school Taros once they both apply to the same university? Well, you could compare their GPA at vastly different institutions, after having your admissions officers use their personal judgment in deciding "OK, that Catholic Theology course is clearly not academic in nature, so we'll discount his grades from that" or "A Korean high school can not possibly be as academically rigorous as the best public school in this prefecture, minus three points". And then you end up replicating the biases in your admissions office.
Or you could be transparent about your admissions process -- not over the course of a day, over the course of a generation:
1) Our school tests for these subjects and expects this level of mastery of the material.
2) Here are ten years of tests to show you what kind of questions we ask.
3) Here are the kinds of scores which have resulted in admissions to the university to particular departments for the last ten years.
4) The only requirement we have for you to take the test is that you have a high school diploma issued by an accredited school. Your GPA, your courses taken, your school's pedagogical choices, and whether you start every class with a prayer to the Flying Sphagetti Monster do not matter to us. We admit the students with the highest scores on the tests. Period.
I agree that comparing GPAs across different schools is weak.
But I think standardized tests in general are only useful up to a point. Beyond measuring aptitude in subjects like math and science, schools should also take subjective criteria into account. Life is far too complex for any test-score to really measure potential for achievement.
Other things to look at might be:
- overcoming personal obstacles with courage and determination
- creative occupations or pursuits; sports; drama; art
- entrepreneurial projects, whether for- or non-profit
These factors are so diverse that it will never be possible to standardize the way that they are ranked. Yet they are absolutely crucial to really understanding where a person is at.
The "cost" of this is that students "won't know how to prepare". Well, perhaps youth will need to be creative and actually think about how they might set themselves apart from their peers.
Students know how to prepare for "holistic criteria": put on an act during their four years of high school which is intellectually flattering to a certain liberal academic mindset.
Go to any high expectations high school in your state and attend a National Honor Society (Leadership AND Community Service (TM)) and ask them why they are there and what they think of the society.
Heck, I've helped Japanese students game the American systems, too. I read one essay by a trilingual student about how she was very challenged in a murderously difficult curriculum but persevered out of her driving determination to become a med school student. And you know how that essay would have been read? "Smart Asian. yawn Find me someone with a hook."
I told her to replace it with a woe-is-me story about the experience of Koreans in Japan. She looked at me like I was crazy. "But I thought that America didn't really discriminate against Koreans?" "Yeah, that's just the point. Its because America doesn't discriminate against you that $IVY is going to." "That makes no sense." "Believe me, I agree with you 100%. If you want to get judged for admissions without regard to your Korean ancestry, try applying to a Japanese school."
We were both silent for a moment. (The WTFness of that situation soured me more on American college admissions than I already naturally was.)
"But anyhow. Yeah. Sob stories of racial discrimination play REALLY well with $IVY. Ever been called an ethnic slur?" "Yeah, a couple of times." "PERFECT. Write how that never stopped you."
Let's be cynical and assume it's impossible to avoid students 'gaming' the system.
What's the better game, the one that keeps students shunted in book-studies for 10 years, or one that prods them to take an active role in the community, get involved in extra-curricular activities, entrepreneurial endeavors, etc.? (even if for the 'wrong reasons')
I can find the societal value-add from 10 years of book studies pretty freaking easily.
Can you identify the societal value-add from my rewrite of that girl's essay?
Ethnic minorities at Japanese high schools graduate literate and capable of doing calculus. Ethnic minorities at American high schools are done a tremendous disservice. Oh, heck, let's strip that of the euphemism -- black and Hispanic students at American high schools are done a tremendous disservice. (Use of the passive voice should not imply that that disservice is wholly the fault of external actors.)
Rather than acknowledging this painful fact, and seeking to improve it, we cover it by emphasizing "holistic evaluation" where we hold them to scandalously lower standards and then declare success because they are admitted into college. Where they wash out in scandalously high numbers. And schools protect those numbers with more diligence than the CIA protects its list of operatives because the public can't be allowed to know the strength of the preferences regime or the extent of the utter failure at education occurring in some schools.
Objective tests for math and science are a baseline requirement; I wasn't arguing otherwise. So we agree on the value of that. But I think we need to go further than only measuring people based on these academic standards.
If you look at my original list of activities (which included the idea of overcoming a personal challenge), a lot of them are not as easily faked as with your rewrite. Moreover, references can be required.
I took on a variety of extra roles in high school because I wanted to be well-rounded. I admit that part of my motivation was to improve my resume, but if that's what it took to get me out there, I'm glad for it, because I learned a lot and grew as a person.
In the particular case you mention, I'd think that there was a societal value-add from your rewrite of that girl's essay if you got her into a school where she will do better than whoever would have taken her place, had you not been involved.
While public schools may have been "assimilation engines" back in 1950, my experience was that they are staunchly opposed to the "melting pot" and far more partial to the multicultural mindset. Since main stream public schools are essentially not allowed to teach subjects like ethical reasoning, they are implicitly teaching relativism AKA "tolerance." Public schools also tend to teach academic subjects in a scripted and mechanical way.
I think that this is the phenomenon that the folks in the article are responding to. Hopefully in realizing that there is no catch-all "best" way to educate, I think these charter schools will unlock previously untapped potential.
“My dad always says, ‘Back in Somalia, when I was 14, I could see myself running my own business, having my own children. You’re 14, you can’t get your studies done.’ ”
I can think of a very effective solution to this stupefyingly (but unsurprisingly) ungrateful person's attitude, and it doesn't involve stealing money from the taxpayer.
No, really, what's the proper response to a group of people's disgust for their new country who (in certain cases) were delivered here against the wishes of the people? What should we say to this? How about, umm, "Go fuck yourself. Seriously. Fuck yourself." That's the reasonable response, but the nytimes rather sings a paean to the unquestionably superior culture and people of Somalia, in deep contrast with the allegedly "American" culture that involves saggy pants.
It's a great example of media framing. When I hear of people who come to a country and immediately:
1. Spit on the ground.
2. Demand extra services.
3. Demand segregation from the natives.
...there are serious social/political questions to be raised. Not fuzzy, where's-your-sandal-I-want-to-lick-it bullcrap.
I didn't submit the article so don't blame me for writing an appropriate response.
If you can't see that theres something wrong with American society that manifests in our young then there's something wrong with you.
I'm sure those immigrant parents know the benefits of America; thats why they came here. But stop bullshitting: kids here do a LOT of insane stuff that has to be a major shock to anyone coming from a traditional culture. The little monsters I see in the store curse at their parents like sailors, demand everything, are obviously lazy, etc. I can excuse a parent who doesn't like that.
There are a number of Japanese public schools in my region. There is also at least one school for Koreans descended from South Korea, one for Koreans descended from North Korea, one for Brazilians, one private school which is primarily used by parents who think the public school curriculum has gone soft ("They NEVER would have let students out on Saturday back when I was a kid! How do you expect them to learn like this?!"), and two or three religiously affiliated private schools.
There are a number of academic and cultural reasons to choose the private schools over the public schools. As you may have heard, Japan has historically had issues with acceptance of people from non-dominant cultures. If you go to the Catholic school, you don't have to actively hide the fact that your first name is Tomas (as in, Saint) rather than Taro, which at least one lad who goes to my church is forced to do to avoid teasing at a public school.
So how to judge the private school Tomases versus the public school Taros once they both apply to the same university? Well, you could compare their GPA at vastly different institutions, after having your admissions officers use their personal judgment in deciding "OK, that Catholic Theology course is clearly not academic in nature, so we'll discount his grades from that" or "A Korean high school can not possibly be as academically rigorous as the best public school in this prefecture, minus three points". And then you end up replicating the biases in your admissions office.
Or you could be transparent about your admissions process -- not over the course of a day, over the course of a generation:
1) Our school tests for these subjects and expects this level of mastery of the material.
2) Here are ten years of tests to show you what kind of questions we ask.
3) Here are the kinds of scores which have resulted in admissions to the university to particular departments for the last ten years.
4) The only requirement we have for you to take the test is that you have a high school diploma issued by an accredited school. Your GPA, your courses taken, your school's pedagogical choices, and whether you start every class with a prayer to the Flying Sphagetti Monster do not matter to us. We admit the students with the highest scores on the tests. Period.