West Carrollton Symbaloo 2013-2025 Form

Departments of education and school districts always have to make decisions about what to include in their curriculum.  There are a lot of life skills that people need that aren't taught in school.  The question is should those skills be taught in schools?I teach high school, so I'll talk about that.  The typical high school curriculum is supposed to give students a broad-based education that prepares them to be citizens in a democracy and to be able to think critically.  For a democracy to work, we need educated, discerning citizens with the ability to make good decisions based on evidence and objective thought.  In theory, people who are well informed about history, culture, science, mathematics, etc., and are capable of critical, unbiased thinking, will have the tools to participate in a democracy and make good decisions for themselves and for society at large.  In addition to that, they should be learning how to be learners, how to do effective, basic research, and collaborate with other people.  If that happens, figuring out how to do procedural tasks in real life should not provide much of a challenge.  We can't possibly teach every necessary life skill people need, but we can help students become better at knowing how to acquire the skills they need.  Should we teach them how to change a tire when they can easily consult a book or search the internet to find step by step instructions for that?  Should we teach them how to balance a check book or teach them how to think mathematically and make sense of problems so that the simple task of balancing a check book (which requires simple arithmetic and the ability to enter numbers and words in columns and rows in obvious ways) is easy for them to figure out.  If we teach them to be good at critical thinking and have some problem solving skills they will be able to apply those overarching skills to all sorts of every day tasks that shouldn't be difficult for someone with decent cognitive ability  to figure out.  It's analogous to asking why a culinary school didn't teach its students the steps and ingredients to a specific recipe.  The school taught them about more general food preparation and food science skills so that they can figure out how to make a lot of specific recipes without much trouble.  They're also able to create their own recipes.So, do we want citizens with very specific skill sets that they need to get through day to day life or do we want citizens with critical thinking, problem solving, and other overarching cognitive skills that will allow them to easily acquire ANY simple, procedural skill they may come to need at any point in their lives?

If we’re talking about the USA (India and China also place an enormous stress on university entrance exams) I’d argue AP courses now provide a sufficient spectrum of possible choices for students to prove their skills and knowledge, along with the SAT/ACT.I’m not a huge fan of high stake testing, largely because I think too much of an emphasis gets placed on them. As a teacher and employee I think diligence and persistence are more critical for success in life than mere latent ability, which is what these tests measure. We get a snapshot of what a given student is capable of doing and evidence of factual knowledge, which are useful, but no insights into the personality of the student. Different people navigate new environments and work well (or not) with people from diverse backgrounds with varying levels of success, and such soft skills are increasingly essential in modern businesses.Tests offer a limited insight and value, both as a diagnostic tool in education and as an indicator of future success. I do think the mix of GPA, standardized exams, essays, and ideally an interview practiced by many selective institutions offers a good balance of data. There are other alternative models, such as Bard College’s paths to admission: Undergraduate AdmissionThe point is standardized tests are but one aspect to university placement, and there are ways to avoid having too much stress placed on test results if this is an issue for a given student.TL;DR: limited use, don’t stress on it too much

My district has a window of time that allows students to transfer to chosen schools. Almost all transfers are accepted.There is a specific procedure to do this correctly.If the student lives in a different district, they have to officially notify that district that they are planning on going to a neighboring district. Paperwork must be signed by both districts.Please contact all the districts involved. They can help you with the steps.Each year the student must reapply for the transfer. My district only denies transfers when attendance or behavior has been an issue.

As noted below, there are very few American undergraduates at Oxford. I happen to be one of them, so let me address the central question: what it takes to actually get admitted.First off, to understand Oxford admissions you need to understand the English[1] secondary school system. For the two years before they go off to university (called sixth form), students specialize down to a few subjects (typically around three or four) which they study exclusively. They sit national standardized exams at the end of each year on these subjects, known as AS-levels for the first year and A-levels for the second year. These exams are graded on an A*-A-B-C-D-E scale, and your A-level grades form more or less the entirety of your secondary school record. There are no GPAs in England. Nor are there SATs or anything comparable to them.Since A-level results are how English applicants are judged, English universities try to find something comparable to judge international applicants with. When it comes to Americans, AP tests are the natural choice: they're comparable to A-levels in material covered and are graded on an easily-converted scale, where a 5 is converted to an A, a 4 to a B, etc. If your school offers it, the IB is also something which English universities understand (some people do it over there). In lieu of these two, SAT II subject tests may be seen as a replacement. In order to apply to an English university, you need one category of these three. You'll also need SAT or ACT scores, as you would for American universities. Noticeably absent from here is your GPA/high school transcript. I applied to five UK universities and the only one which asked for my high school transcript was St. Andrew's, which has a lot of Americans. I've heard of Cambridge requesting transcripts as well. By and large, though, English universities don't really understand high school transcripts, in part because they are so non-standardized that it's not easy to interpret them fairly to everyone and in part because they just don't really correspond well to their system.One other important part of the system: you might have noticed that I said that English students apply with A-levels and that I also said that A-levels are taken the end of the year before you attend university. This means that when people apply, they haven't actually received their results yet. Instead, they apply based on what they are predicted (by their teachers/school) to achieve. They'll then get what's known as a conditional offer: they'll be admitted on the condition that they get certain grades in their A-levels. As an American, the upshot of this is that you can apply using tests you haven't taken yet in order to fulfill the requirements. The downside is that if you do, you'll probably get a conditional offer yourself, and then if you mess up a test you'll lose your acceptance. No pressure!On to Oxford itself. Oxford asks Americans to have SAT scores of 700+ in Critical Reading and in Math, with 2100+ overall (this will probably change in a few years with the planned restructuring of the SAT). In addition, they ask for either three APs with a score of 5 or three SAT II subject tests at 700+ each. As noted by other answers, at Oxford you apply at the beginning for a specific course of study (e.g. biology or English), so they also want your APs/subject tests to be in subjects related to your course. For example, if you're applying for chemistry, AP chemistry or the SAT II chemistry is a must, and at least one (preferably both) of the others should be in related subjects (e.g. other sciences, math).The first step of the process is to submit an application with a personal statement and the scores discussed above. The next thing you'll need to do is typically a submission of your work and/or a subject test. This varies a lot between subjects. There's the MAT for math and for computer science, the HAT for history, the TSA for a variety of subjects, including E&M and PPE, and various other admissions tests. Essay-based subjects (English, history, etc.) generally will require you to submit a writing sample.Based on your scores and on your submission/subject test, the next step is to be selected to interview. There's nothing quite like the interview process at Oxford and Cambridge. Over the course of two weeks, thousands and thousands of prospective students descend upon the university. Everyone will be given 2-5 (or maybe even more) interviews with 1-2 tutors (academics-- think "professor" in the American sense, though a "professor" over there is a narrow term more akin to someone with a named professorship in the USA). These interviews will be usually 30-45 minutes each and are academic in nature. The interviewers are trying to determine how good you are at your subject, or how good they think you could be. For example, for math you'll spend the whole time doing math problems; for English, you'll probably be given a text and asked to analyze it. As an American, you'll probably have the option to do your interviews via Skype. I chose to fly over for mine and made it into a mini-vacation with my mom. The interviews are hugely important. Generally once you signNow the interview stage your performance in your interviews is the basis for whether or not you actually get in, though the other parts of your application are still considered.So that's how you apply and get in. Now the other question: how hard is it to get in?If you look at how the admissions process works, it's first and foremost selecting for talent. This is a huge and refreshing difference from the USA! American university admissions have a huge jumping-through-hoops component, with the emphasis on extracurriculars and on essays, as well as on high school GPA, which is something of a hoop-jumping exercise too. At Oxford, all that matters is being good at what you want to study. In a general sense, it's pretty hard to get in to Oxford (no surprise here) because it's hard to be really good at things. At the same time, if you're really good at your subject, this will come out in the admissions process and you'll probably get in. This is true in a sense in the USA too, but in the USA it depends on having well-recognized accomplishments (USAMO, ISEF, etc) to signal your skill, which introduces much more noise into the process. If you're very talented but don't know about those opportunities or can't take advantage of them for whatever reason, it's very possible for Harvard etc. to have no way of knowing about you and for them to consequently reject you. One final note: over the past few years I've talked with quite a few Americans who were interested in applying to Oxford and wanted information or advice. None of them actually followed through with it. There are only something like 30 or 40 American undergraduates at Oxford every year, and of those a bunch have some kind of international connection: they go to an international school or have a parent who went to Oxford or something. The US high school -> Oxford jump is very rare, and not without reason. In fact, in general I wouldn't recommend most Americans to go to Oxford. But I'll save that for another answer.[1] Well, it's not just England. Since Scotland has Highers instead of A-levels, though, I'm restricting myself to England for simplicity.

It's not impossible. A boy that went to my high school a few years ago was the boy who created the finger skateboards. He created it when he was in elementary school or middle school and I believe he was a millionaire before he left high school.Another person created the lids for heinz (the condiments brand) and was also a millionaire before they left high school.You don't have to be genius to be someone in this world, just be creative.