As a former award winner, seeing Shaker on top of the list, isn't shocking!

 

It is a bit considering how much the demographics have changed. NMSFs are born, not taught.

 

Birth plays some role. I doubt it's the dominant one, though. Upbringing has to mean something. I'm sure that a clone of me would have had a lot more trouble winning the award if my parents had broken up or been killed by ninjas when I was young.

 

You're right, I should have clarified. What I meant to say was that being born into the right type of family goes a long way, too. Nurture plays a role, but the most important aspect is what goes on in the home, not the school. The number of NMSFs is a credit to the type of students/families that Shaker Heights still somehow manages to attract, not really a credit to the quality of the schools themselves.

 

Well, first, I don't have a problem with "ability to attract top students" being part of the definition of quality, whereas you appear to divorce the two.  The fact that people vote with their feet for Shaker is actually quite strong evidence, as far as I'm concerned, that they are doing something right.  Perhaps it's just inertia, but the kinds of families that tend to produce National Merit Scholars are generally alert to local issues and physically mobile--in other words, the kind who would be likely to pick up on any substantive decline in whatever Shaker is doing right and who would not hesitate to move if they felt they could do better by their children elsewhere.

 

With respect to the importance of what goes on at home, absolutely, I agree.  I would guess that the portion of National Merit Scholars from stable, traditional families is substantially higher than the national average, and the portion of such students with two college educated parents is probably higher yet.

Yes," somehow" a public school system that continues to pump out NMSF and admissions to the country's top universities continues to attract families who value those things.  Totally weird :)

 

^Your zany idea of using consumer decisions as an element for assessing school quality reminds me of something I read several years ago.  With all the questionable college rankings out there, someone got a hold of enough admissions data to see where students who were admitted to multiple colleges actually enrolled.  A ranking based on consumer choice, if you will.  For the life of me I have't been able to find it again though.

 

 

Were calculating from an early age!

Not all of us. Some of us have to be driven to get to the point where we start teaching others the meaning of fear.

^Your zany idea of using consumer decisions as an element for assessing school quality reminds me of something I read several years ago. With all the questionable college rankings out there, someone got a hold of enough admissions data to see where students who were admitted to multiple colleges actually enrolled. A ranking based on consumer choice, if you will. For the life of me I have't been able to find it again though.

 

I'd be interested in seeing this, both for the information itself and because my first thought was to ask whether this survey controlled for actual costs of attendance, counting scholarships earned by the student (and parent) decision-makers.  For colleges, cost has to count as a factor (as would high schools if you expanded the scope of the inquiry to include private schools).  For example, I got into more prestigious colleges than Ohio State, but the scholarship package I got at OSU was by far the best.  That made all the difference.  Same thing with law school, though my scholarship package there wasn't quite as generous (or, rather, the tuition was just a lot higher).

^I don't think it adjusted for $, which was a major weakness.  I think it got the most attention as way of comparing the top private universities.  Back then, they may still have been colluding so as not to compete for students with aid, so the money question may not even have been much a weakness when comparing those schools.

 

UPDATE: I think this is the paper that contained the rankings I mentioned.  My apologies if my very rusty memory mis-characterized the methodology, but from the abstract, this looks to be it:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105

USNews used to have a matriculation rate ranking (as part of their college rankings issue).  I can't find it right now, but schools like Harvard and Yale were at the top, but so were Army and Navy, and even a few seemingly odd ones, like BYU.

I don't think that's particularly surprising, since the matriculation rate is basically a measurement of "how likely was it that this school was a student's top choice and that money was not an object?"  For Army and Navy, the latter doesn't matter because tuition is free.  For Harvard and Yale, well, most applicants there either have parents that they can rely on for a significant degree of support, or are willing to mortgage their souls for the platinum-plated degree.

I don't think that's particularly surprising, since the matriculation rate is basically a measurement of "how likely was it that this school was a student's top choice and that money was not an object?" For Army and Navy, the latter doesn't matter because tuition is free. For Harvard and Yale, well, most applicants there either have parents that they can rely on for a significant degree of support, or are willing to mortgage their souls for the platinum-plated degree.

 

I could be wrong, but I think I read that most Ivy League schools have gotten to the point where if your parents don't make a certain amount of money, the school picks up the bill.

^Harvard got to that point, but I don't think the other Ivies are quite that generous.  But yes, for most people, money is a poor reason to turn down Harvard at this point.

 

Harvard may have pulled back their aid a bit in the last couple years though- they got caught in a massive cash/liqidity squeeze when the market tanked (thanks in part to some Larry Summers mismanagement).

Kinda-sorta.

 

http://www.finaid.org/questions/noloansforlowincome.phtml

^Right; from that link, at Harvard, the family contribution from families earning less than $60k is zero; and between $60k and $180k it's a sliding scale from 0 to 10% of income.  I don't know what the expected contribution from the kid herself is, through loans, work study, grants, etc, so could still be sizable.  Sending kids away to college is still very expensive, for sure, but this certainly shrinks the gap between Harvard and other places, at least compared to how big it used to be.

 

Please note I have no affiliation with, or even great love for Harvard.  It publicized this financial aid policy with great fanfare as if it were a technological breakthrough, even though it is so flush with endowment it could probably afford to eliminate undergrad tuition all together without feeling much of a pinch.

 

Note, I mischaracterized the policy in my post before correcting it.

SH:  My kinda-sorta was directed at Clevelander17, not you.

 

Also, I don't know what the response to the market squeeze has been, but I'd be interested in knowing--and also interested in knowing if the new aid programs were curtailed but then reinstated given the partial (but significant) recovery we've seen so far.

^gotcha.  I may have been wrong about changes to the financial aid plan.  There was a ton of coverage when it was launched, and I thought I read something about it being pulled back, but may have confused it with the law school's public interest financial aid plan: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E2DE1F3DF930A35751C1A96F9C8B63&scp=1&sq=Harvard+law+school+financial+aid&st=nyt

 

Harvard's financial predicament is pretty unique I believe.  Its endowment is still gargantuan, but it lost something like $10B; more than all but a few schools ever had even at the peak.  Much of the endowment (like those of other schools) is tied up in illiquid private equity investments, so when the downturn came, they had to sell off some of their more liquid assets to raise cash and locked in some big losses.  And, more to the point, they had been aggressively investing even their operating cash, which had yielded great returns for a few years, but absolutely killed them on a cash flow basis when the downturn came.  I'm pretty sure they've change their investment policies for operating cash, so that money didn't come back with the market.  There was a long Bloomberg article about Summers' involvement a few months ago.  You'll pardon my schadenfreude.

 

The most conspicuous impact of the change in fortunes has been its campus expansion plans.  The school spent millions upon millions to begin a major new science campus which they have put off indefinitely after building just a massive concrete foundation.

Absolutely nothing at hand to back this up but I have some vague recollection of Princeton, given its endowment, instituting a program that gave almost all of its students free tuition.

As a former award winner, seeing Shaker on top of the list, isn't shocking!

 

It is a bit considering how much the demographics have changed. NMSFs are born, not taught.

 

Well it look like you got part of that statement correct!

 

Eh, I got about 80% of it correct.

 

You sound like a bitter angry person who's upset that he wasn't capable of earning an award. Jealousy is an ugly ensemble....you wear it well.

Pahahaha.  Where/when are meetings for UO National Merit winners? I must get in on this tomfoolery.

The ciphered directions to our secret meeting place involve tensor calculus, riddles written alternatively in Sumerian and binary, and a Scantron sheet.

I was high when I took my PSAT and still made National Merit so I wouldn't put too much weight into it.

New NMSF list announced today: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/09/more_than_200_area_high_school.html

 

Bonanza year for Solon with 21; big year for Westlake too, with 14.  Smaller total this year for Shaker HS (8 ).  This is just a quick gloss- the usual suspects (Ignatius) had lots too.

 

Other interesting observations: the Lyceum HS in Little Italy had 3- that school really flies under the radar.  Frankly, based solely on the description on the web site, it creeps me out, but I know little about it.  And Kudos to the Montessori HS at University Circle for having one in its first year.

 

And despite their high median incomes, most of the sprawl-burgs had very few.  Of the middle and outer ring, only Westlake and Solon have sizable numbers, I believe.

 

Other interesting observations: the Lyceum HS in Little Italy had 3- that school really flies under the radar.  Frankly, based solely on the description on the web site, it creeps me out, but I know little about it.  And Kudos to the Montessori HS at University Circle for having one in its first year.

 

 

This is AWESOME for Cleveland and University Circle.

Mods, can we change the thread title to something like the one in my post so it's not so closely tied to last year's results?

<sarcasm>

another banner year for my alma mater

</sarcasm>

I'd never heard of that Lyceum before, either.  That's interesting.

 

From their Web site, I'd wish I could send my children to a secular alternative that was basically otherwise set up in that tradition.  I particularly like the focus on making rhetoric (in the old sense of the term, not the modern political pejorative) and logic core components of the curriculum.

 

Also, while I wouldn't want to spend too much time on this, I appreciate the fact that they consider a measure of etiquette and personal refinement goals of 7-12 education, too.  At least, I like it on paper.  I'd want to see it in execution (like everything else in this world, really), to see what the actual content of this vision is behind its pleasant words.  Nevertheless, I like it in principle.

 

(I also admit I'm a fan of the conceptual balancing act they're pulling off with their vision of a "Catholic classical education," with "classical" clearly carrying the meaning of relating to Greece and Rome.  My CCD memories may be faulty, but I seem to remember the Romans and Jews/Christians having some political and theological differences ...)

Nice.

How about lists from Cincinnati and Columbus area schools?  I know that Princeton (Cincy) and Upper Arlington (Cowtown) both regularly do well on these lists.

For the poster looking for a suburb with Asians in it:

 

Hudson High School: Daphne Chen, Jeffrey Choi, Ellen Chuang, Anne Kim, Tiffany Lin, Eric Xie and Peter Yao.

Hah!

 

The Westlake crew also appears to be South Asian-heavy, but nothing like Hudson's East Asians.  Wow.

How about lists from Cincinnati and Columbus area schools? I know that Princeton (Cincy) and Upper Arlington (Cowtown) both regularly do well on these lists.

 

Walnut Hills (Cincinnati Public) and Sycamore (suburban district) had the most with 17 each.  Indian Hill (suburban) had 11.

 

For the private schools, St. Xavier had 13, Seven Hills School had 11, Summit Country Day and Cincinnati Country Day both had 10.

How about lists from Cincinnati and Columbus area schools? I know that Princeton (Cincy) and Upper Arlington (Cowtown) both regularly do well on these lists.

 

Walnut Hills (Cincinnati Public) and Sycamore (suburban district) had the most with 17 each. Indian Hill (suburban) had 11.

 

For the private schools, St. Xavier had 13, Seven Hills School had 11, Summit Country Day and Cincinnati Country Day both had 10.

 

Ugh, Cleveland Metropolitan School District needs something like Walnut Hills.

^I totally agree.  A countywide one would be great too.

Walnut Hills is case study for big city schools. Admission is open to any student in the City of Cincinnati who passes a modest admissions test. Its as diverse as Shaker Heights but offers an education to kids whose parents actually care about their educations. This means that Cincinnati can support diverse, higher income city neighborhoods like Hyde Park, Oakley and Mount Lookout where parents can have faith their kids can obtain a quality education through high school while continuing to reside within city limits.

Walnut Hills is case study for big city schools. Admission is open to any student in the City of Cincinnati who passes a modest admissions test. Its as diverse as Shaker Heights but offers an education to kids whose parents actually care about their educations. This means that Cincinnati can support diverse, higher income city neighborhoods like Hyde Park, Oakley and Mount Lookout where parents can have faith their kids can obtain a quality education through high school while continuing to reside within city limits.

 

Are a certain number of seats open by lottery to students who may otherwise not be admitted?

 

Are a certain number of seats open by lottery to students who may otherwise not be admitted?

 

 

No; not by lottery.  Historically, they admitted fairly liberally, and the students who couldn't keep up would transfer out.  Attrition rates had been in the 25% to 30% rate, but over the last ten years they have reduced the attrition rate to about 5%.  My understanding is that this was done through extra tutoring, etc., not by adjusting the admissions.

I should have also said, Walnut Hills High School affords lower income kids who can't or won't move out of the City of Cincinnati but also want a very solid secondary education....

I should have also said, Walnut Hills High School affords lower income kids who can't or won't move out of the City of Cincinnati but also want a very solid secondary education....

 

Is this not offered at other CPS high schools?

While I don't profess to be an expert on CPS, I know off hand that at least one other high school, Clark Montessori, offers a great education comparable to private schools or some suburban districts.  The CPS High School model has trended towards specialization of late.

 

Withrow High School is rated "excellent" and has two, smaller schools combined in one: University for college bound kids, and the more traditional model labled international school.

 

Hughes Highschool is composed of many smaller 'schools' where students can enter tracks such as healthcare (the hospitals and university is right next door), math and science, technology, and even a special track where students attend school at the zoo, and prepare for a career in zoology.

 

The School for the Creative and Performing Arts acts as a school that both city residents and non residents go to (tuition can be paid to go, like Walnut), and it also requires a test to enter, although the test is in the form of an audition.

 

CPS is trying to form niche schools that are good at what they do, so that students aren't lumped in all together.  So far, this model seems to be working pretty well for them.