Why does GT suck at recruiting?

[ncjacket]

One thing that needs to be said, is that even at public schools kids from different backgrounds, etc., may go to school together, but they don't go to class together. You really end up with multiple schools in the same buildings almost.

 

[aeromech]

So aeromech, just who said that? Nice straw man though.

Is wasn't supposed to be a "who", it was a summation of this thread. And no it isn't a nice straw man, apparently you have no idea of what a straw man is.

 

[lonestarjacket]

One thing that needs to be said, is that even at public schools kids from different backgrounds, etc., may go to school together, but they don't go to class together. You really end up with multiple schools in the same buildings almost.

That's true.

My school was like a small city, with trouble areas where I steered clear. I was thankful my school had smoking areas because that tended to draw all the ne'er-do-wells" together.

I also went to a "Comprehensive" high school with lots of vocational programs. There definitely was a different sort of typical student in the vocational wing than the academic wing.

 

[Buzzed4Life]

The field of study is narrower, but Tech seems to be adding some areas of study that aren't engineering or architecture-related. Being that the school is smaller and UGA has a bigger fan-base would be why we don't get the recruits, but this has already been said a few times by previous posters.

 

[gthog61]

Here's how I rate the relative importance of UGAs "recruiting advantage":

UGA recruiting ability>GT recruiting ability

GT everything else that differentiates schools>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>UGA everything else that differentiates schools

We could recruit just like UGA if we were just like UGA in every other way but then what would be the point? We'd just be two branches of the same school.

 

[aeromech]

I make one more point, because I don't think it has been mentioned yet. The types of students we've recruited previously probably has some impact on the types of students we'll recruit in the future. Meaning, when a prospect makes his visit to GT and meets other players and finds out they are serious students, it is either going to attract them here or send them off somewhere else. The guys who are struggling to make an 820 on the SAT are probably more inclined to buddy up with other kids that have poor academic skills, not the kids with solid academic credentials. For example, do you think this kid who has broken all of Herschel Walker's high school records would feel more comfortable at GT socially, or at some school with a bunch a Hargrave alumni? That natural affinity to be around others like yourself must have some influence on recruiting.

 

[00Burdell]

I make one more point, because I don't think it has been mentioned yet.

My patience is rewarded. After nine pages, somebody finally has a genuine insight about the actual topic of the thread.

Very good point.

 

[beej67]

Other than the high-brow elite prep schools, this issue is a red herring.

The issue is, supposedly, that private schools teach better than public schools, and the evidence, supposedly, is test scores.

So if you want to compare apples to apples, compare the test scores of private schools with Walton High School, or with Chattahoochee High School. Those are public schools that have students much closer in economic demographics to private schools. And I think you'll find, if you bother to actually do the comparison, that their test scores are pretty comparable.

The data is in my favor, not yours.

 

[gt7282c@prism]

The issue is, supposedly, that private schools teach better than public schools, and the evidence, supposedly, is test scores.

So if you want to compare apples to apples, compare the test scores of private schools with Walton High School, or with Chattahoochee High School. Those are public schools that have students much closer in economic demographics to private schools. And I think you'll find, if you bother to actually do the comparison, that their test scores are pretty comparable.

The data is in my favor, not yours.

+1. There is also a correlation between test scores and percentage of students on the free/reduced lunch program. It shouldn't surprise anyone. In general, rich parents place value on their children's education. Poor parents don't.

 

[ncjacket]

I've told a few people on the school board here that I'm positive you could predict performance on SATs, state tests, etc, within a few points by knowing the demographics of the school. Then you should reward teachers if a school outperforms the predicted scores, not on raw scores. They all kind of nod their heads and then ignore me, not sure if it's because they don't understand how to use data or if it's taboo to suggest in PC circles.

 

[beej67]

Then you should reward teachers if a school outperforms the predicted scores, not on raw scores.

That's a very smart approach, IMO.

They all kind of nod their heads and then ignore me, not sure if it's because they don't understand how to use data or if it's taboo to suggest in PC circles.

Probably the PC thing.

 

[wesleyd21]

The "no girls" excuse is so lame.

If you can't get laid in Atlanta you will never ever have sex....ever.

 

[stinger78]

The issue is, supposedly, that private schools teach better than public schools, and the evidence, supposedly, is test scores.

So if you want to compare apples to apples, compare the test scores of private schools with Walton High School, or with Chattahoochee High School. Those are public schools that have students much closer in economic demographics to private schools. And I think you'll find, if you bother to actually do the comparison, that their test scores are pretty comparable.

The data is in my favor, not yours.

I don't know where you get this "the data is in my favor" stuff. I wholeheartedly agree with your stipulation above.

My argument was with the assertion earlier in then thread, which I hold to be totally false, that there is a significant difference between private and public school student populations within a specific area, and that private school students are somehow more privileged, or better. For many school, there is not a significant difference. (For a significantly fewer set of schools, there is). Anyway, you have proven my point - thanks. It's ncjacket you have issue with. Then again, my two kids go to private school, and I have done the research, that's why they're there. I'm convinced they are getting just as good an education as they would get at Walton, North Gwinnett, or may other top HS in the metro area. As you say, "the data is in my favor."

 

[lonestarjacket]

Is wasn't supposed to be a "who", it was a summation of this thread. And no it isn't a nice straw man, apparently you have no idea of what a straw man is.

Summation? You can't identify even a single font who comes close to presenting the argument of your "summation." For it to be a "summation", at least a few would need to come close to making the points of your "summation."

You just made up something in your head that was ridiculous and was easy to refute. Yeah, it was pretty much a classic example of a straw man.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

 

[ncjacket]

Well, I don't know if he has an argument with me or not, but I do think you have it backwards. There are some areas where the makeup of the student population is very similar at public and private schools, but my assertion, and one that I think most would agree with, is that in the majority of communities, that's simply not the case.

 

[lonestarjacket]

I don't know where you get this "the data is in my favor" stuff. I wholeheartedly agree with your stipulation above.

My argument was with the assertion earlier in then thread, which I hold to be totally false, that there is a significant difference between private and public school student populations within a specific area, and that private school students are somehow more privileged, or better. For many school, there is not a significant difference. (For a significantly fewer set of schools, there is). Anyway, you have proven my point - thanks. It's ncjacket you have issue with. Then again, my two kids go to private school, and I have done the research, that's why they're there. I'm convinced they are getting just as good an education as they would get at Walton, North Gwinnett, or may other top HS in the metro area. As you say, "the data is in my favor."

There was no such stipulation about "within a specific area". That was how you defended your personal experience that public students and private students were the same.

The original assertion was that the total population of private school students are fundamentally different than the total population of public school students.

It is a bit like comparing the coaching ability of Mack Brown at Texas to Paul Johnson at Navy. Swap all the players and the outcome is likely to be different.

P.S.
The biggest reason most people have to send kids to private schools is to NOT send them to a particular public school. Some do it for other reasons, like religious curriculum. The teaching may or not be better, but the general environment is certainly better when you remove the difficult students.

 

[aeromech]

....

The original assertion was that the total population of private school students are fundamentally different than the total population of public school students.

.

Now that's a pretty good strawman; because I haven't heard anyone post in those type of absolutes. Absolutes are common in strawman arguments. Here's another example of a strawman if that was what I wanted to do:

"Government school advocates argue that the academic experience at North Clayton High School is exactly the same as at Woodward Academy."

I would state an argument like this no one has made and then tear it down, which if you know anything about NCHS would be easy to do.

What I tried to do was a 'summation'. I wasn't trying to attribute the points to any single poster; but it was compiled from reading a couple of pages of this crapola. So you keep asking 'who said that?', and I keep responding 'which part?' because nobody said all that.

I do find it humorous that people will argue that Government Schools are 'great' and 'underfunded' simultaneously though. If they are 'great' then they are adequately funded, if you think they are underfunded then there must be a problem with them you recognize that needs money to fix.

 

[stinger78]

There was no such stipulation about "within a specific area". That was how you defended your personal experience that public students and private students were the same.

And his response I copied above was to me based on my assertion. Hence, we agree as to my assertion. Don't know what issue you find with that. I never asserted that the total populations were fundamentally different. I'm not familiar with the total population and cannot make that assertion.

The original assertion was that the total population of private school students are fundamentally different than the total population of public school students.

Define fundamentally different. What constitutes a fundamental difference? I think you have to define the parameters of your metric first. Never seen that defined in this thread. Is fundamentally different less than 20% variance? More? Less? Is the variance measured by religious affiliation? CRCT? GPA? Socio-economic data? Racial? On what metric do you base your assertion? beej? Anyone?

Careful how you answer. You may find that "fundamental differences" from public school to public school. In the final analysis, what then would it ultimately prove? You'd have to broaden your definition of "fundamentally different" so far as to lose all meaning.

I'd really like your answer here as I'm genuinely curious. The point has been made so vociferously, yet I'm betting you all cannot even define your hypothesis.

It is a bit like comparing the coaching ability of Mack Brown at Texas to Paul Johnson at Navy. Swap all the players and the outcome is likely to be different.

This makes no sense to me. Are you somehow trying to make a point that if you put all private school kids in a public school and vice versa that public school would de better? Have we established that provate schools educate better than private?

P.S.
The biggest reason most people have to send kids to private schools is to NOT send them to a particular public school. Some do it for other reasons, like religious curriculum. The teaching may or not be better, but the general environment is certainly better when you remove the difficult students.

Do you send your kids to private school? There are many and multiple reasons people send kids to private school. It varies greatly, but I'm sure there are few that predominate. I fail to see the point of this statement. Gwinnett County schools are among the best, particularly the N Gwinnett area. Quality of education is not why I do it. Yes, it stands to reason that if you remove difficult students, the task of teaching is easier.

My whole minor contribution to this thread was to say that being a kid in private school doesn't necesarily mean you are smarter, more affluent, make better grades, or have a better advantage in life. I'll stand by that statement. I'll also stick my neck out and mae a guess that I'm the only one in this thread who actually has his kids in a private school. Am I wrong?

 

[BuzzMD]

My whole minor contribution to this thread was to say that being a kid in private school doesn't necesarily mean you are smarter, more affluent, make better grades, or have a better advantage in life. I'll stand by that statement. I'll also stick my neck out and mae a guess that I'm the only one in this thread who actually has his kids in a private school. Am I wrong?

My kids go to private in Macon, GA. And my example is more like ncjackets than yours, stinger.

Stinger, you have not seen the public and private schools in Macon then.. My children have gone to both private and public schools. In the public schools, they were in "integrated" classes -- that is, children with significant learning or emotional disabilities. Some of these children disrupted classes EVERY day. Several of these children have wealthy parents -- but the private schools said "we do not have the faculty for teaching them adequately." Most private schools have 0 special education teachers -- and so these students are required to go to public school. And so the public schools are required to teach them -- and the current thinking is that the best education for them is in integrated classrooms. So now you have integrated classrooms that are disrupted once or twice a day.

I will agree that at the top end and middle area they are equivalent in that you can find brilliant and average people in both schools, as I have seen. However, at least at the private schools I have seen in Macon compared to the public schools, you do not see the mentally/emotionally challenged nor do you see the students who are in school purely because parents are required to put them there and it is free daycare.

Aside -- maybe this topic should be moved to OffTopic

 

[beej67]

My argument was with the assertion earlier in then thread, which I hold to be totally false, that there is a significant difference between private and public school student populations within a specific area, and that private school students are somehow more privileged, or better.

Compare Chattahoochee's test results (rich kids from North Fulton) with Walker's test results (rich kids from Marietta) to Marietta's test results (poor kids from Mareitta) and what you'll find is that test results are more highly correlated with family income level than region.

Define fundamentally different. What constitutes a fundamental difference?

My definition? Income level. I've stuck to it through the thread, and I will continue to stick to it. Income level. Find a public school and a private school who's median family income is the same, and you'll find two schools who's median test scores are the same, or damn near.

Median test scores correlate more highly with median income level than with whether a school is public or private. That is my point. That's what I've said over and over.

I speculate that the reasons why are several fold, but can be derived primarily from nature (genetics) and nurture (home life).