pacman_IHB
New member
<p>For the parents fox on this forum, are they really that good ? we seriously considering irvine over other towns, based on the scholl system</p>
<p>is it worth it ?</p>
<p>is it worth it ?</p>
Irvine Schools
- Thread starter pacman_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Mendelssohn_IHB
New member
pacman
People have talked about Irvine schools a couple times. Click on Search and type in Irvine school, the past discussion regarding this topic will show up.
People have talked about Irvine schools a couple times. Click on Search and type in Irvine school, the past discussion regarding this topic will show up.
hs_teacher_IHB
New member
irvine schools are great. don't want to sound rascist, but i think it's a racial thing. irvine (ahem, asian) residents are more academically focused than most others.
ABC123_IHB
New member
As someone who went to Irvine schools, I would have to say it depends entirely on your child whether or not Irvine schools are "good. If your child is in the gate/honors/AP classes then Irvine has an excellent schools.If, however, your child is just average, the schools are only mediocre at best. Your child will be lost in a crowd of super achieving "little geniuses" In high school, for example, there's a huge difference in the quality of education between the regular college prep courses and the AP courses. I was in the regular English class and we had to read "The Outsiders" while the honors class was reading Shakespeare.
The one thing that strikes me as a negative is the huge academic pressure at the cost of social skills. Irvine schools seem to place a high emphasis on standardized exams, so your child will probably become an expert at taking multiple choice tests.If your child doesn't have the ability to interact with others, it doesn't matter that he scored a perfect score on his SAT.
What I find amazing is if the schools in Irvine are so great, why do so many students have to take classes at Irvine Valley College? I'm not talking about one or two while in high school so you can get a few general ed classes out of the way, but it seems to start as young as the 6th grade. This desire to succeed at all costs is borderline ridiculous.
The one thing that strikes me as a negative is the huge academic pressure at the cost of social skills. Irvine schools seem to place a high emphasis on standardized exams, so your child will probably become an expert at taking multiple choice tests.If your child doesn't have the ability to interact with others, it doesn't matter that he scored a perfect score on his SAT.
What I find amazing is if the schools in Irvine are so great, why do so many students have to take classes at Irvine Valley College? I'm not talking about one or two while in high school so you can get a few general ed classes out of the way, but it seems to start as young as the 6th grade. This desire to succeed at all costs is borderline ridiculous.
pacman_IHB
New member
<p>Well standardized exams are total BS, and the only reason school emphasize on them so much is because of the brilliant "No child left behind" program, literally no child can stay behind, so schools spend many resources and time to study for the tests, cause if they fail, the dep of education will reduce their funding.</p>
<p>it's an aweful way to teach and learn.</p>
<p>with that said, i thin irvine in general has a better curicullum, that capistrano or tustin unified.</p>
<p>it's an aweful way to teach and learn.</p>
<p>with that said, i thin irvine in general has a better curicullum, that capistrano or tustin unified.</p>
irvine_native_IHB
New member
What makes Irvine schools nice is the high level of parental involvement. Families who care about school quality move here causing more families with similar concerns to move here. A positive feedback loop.
But as a product of University High school myself, I plan on sending my kids to a different high school even though I have an address that lets them enroll in UHS. I prefer a more balanced environment. The academic focus at UHS is excessive in my opinion. Too much studying and too little socialization, team sports, arts, music (route classical violin memorization doesn't count) etc, just doesn't prepare kids for the real world very well. The best word that I could use to describe my time at UHS would be "sheltered". College was such a shock.
And yeah, NCLB sucks. We are producing a generation of professional test takers.
But as a product of University High school myself, I plan on sending my kids to a different high school even though I have an address that lets them enroll in UHS. I prefer a more balanced environment. The academic focus at UHS is excessive in my opinion. Too much studying and too little socialization, team sports, arts, music (route classical violin memorization doesn't count) etc, just doesn't prepare kids for the real world very well. The best word that I could use to describe my time at UHS would be "sheltered". College was such a shock.
And yeah, NCLB sucks. We are producing a generation of professional test takers.
vicstah_IHB
New member
<p>I'm a UHS graduate as well, and agree w/ irvine_native about the excessive academic focus of that school. All the kids that did the honors track went to top UCs and private schools. If you are not taking 3-4 honors and ap classes after your 1st year, something's wrong with you. Anyways, that was over 10 years ago, and from what I hear, UHS is even more competitive today.</p>
<p>However, one great thing about UHS and Irvine Schools in general, there were some really great teachers. Ask any UHS alum about Don Christensen (US History/Poli Sci) and check out their reactions. His classes were as interesting and challenging as most of my toughest college classes.</p>
<p>However, one great thing about UHS and Irvine Schools in general, there were some really great teachers. Ask any UHS alum about Don Christensen (US History/Poli Sci) and check out their reactions. His classes were as interesting and challenging as most of my toughest college classes.</p>
Nude_IHB
New member
<p>Excessive academic focus? My grandafather had four years of required Latin, in addition to English, Civics, Math, History, Economics, PE, Science, etc. When I read his old transcripts I was shocked. My mom told me they were in the process of phasing that kind of curriculum out when she was in HS, and I never saw anything close to being that tough. Excessive? Try "barely enough".</p>
<p>Every nation currently competing for jobs and growth with the US and others is sinking massive amounts of time, effort, and committment into making their children the best academic generation in a century. Well-rounded shouldn't even be a consideration if it's going to put your kids in third place to the world before they even hit college. If they aren't smart enough to make it, so be it, but don't rob them of the opportunity just so they don't feel pressure.</p>
<p>/rant</p>
<p>Every nation currently competing for jobs and growth with the US and others is sinking massive amounts of time, effort, and committment into making their children the best academic generation in a century. Well-rounded shouldn't even be a consideration if it's going to put your kids in third place to the world before they even hit college. If they aren't smart enough to make it, so be it, but don't rob them of the opportunity just so they don't feel pressure.</p>
<p>/rant</p>
Nude,
<em>Well-rounded shouldn't even be a consideration if it's going to put your kids in third place to the world before they even hit college.</em>
I think you are assuming that taking challenging classes and putting all efforts to get the best grades, even at the expense of socialization and extracurricular activities, is your best shot at success. This may be true in the aggregate and for countries competing with one another, but may not be for the individual.
I would think that a person who has "good" grades (though not the best) and excellent social skills would do better in the business world and in life in general than the person who has excellent grades who doesn't really care to socialize. The social person would be able to read people better, get them to work as a team, has a better shot of being in higher level management, form start-up companies, than the academic who is more likely to be "just" a professional, albeit a well compensated one like an engineer or doctor or lawyer. Look at George Bush and Dick Cheney (not sure about Dick's grades though).
<em>Well-rounded shouldn't even be a consideration if it's going to put your kids in third place to the world before they even hit college.</em>
I think you are assuming that taking challenging classes and putting all efforts to get the best grades, even at the expense of socialization and extracurricular activities, is your best shot at success. This may be true in the aggregate and for countries competing with one another, but may not be for the individual.
I would think that a person who has "good" grades (though not the best) and excellent social skills would do better in the business world and in life in general than the person who has excellent grades who doesn't really care to socialize. The social person would be able to read people better, get them to work as a team, has a better shot of being in higher level management, form start-up companies, than the academic who is more likely to be "just" a professional, albeit a well compensated one like an engineer or doctor or lawyer. Look at George Bush and Dick Cheney (not sure about Dick's grades though).
EvaLSeraphim_IHB
New member
>>I would think that a person who has "good" grades (though not the best) and excellent social skills would do better in the business world and in life in general than the person who has excellent grades who doesn't really care to socialize. The social person would be able to read people better, get them to work as a team, has a better shot of being in higher level management,
FWIW, my observations bear out your argument.
FWIW, my observations bear out your argument.
Rocker_IHB
New member
<p>Yes, I have seen that in my line of work computer science/software engineer.
Good grades take you until certain level, but once that you reach that level, you need the help of your social skills to go above and beyond, or else you will get stuck in one specialized position.
And then the following becomes the absolute truth, kind of ironic for academic excellence believers:
"Is not what you know, is who you know"
To understand this business world it helps to think that you need to be both: <strong>book smart and street smart</strong>, not only one or the other, both in a balanced way and you will be ahead of the pack.
</p>
Good grades take you until certain level, but once that you reach that level, you need the help of your social skills to go above and beyond, or else you will get stuck in one specialized position.
And then the following becomes the absolute truth, kind of ironic for academic excellence believers:
"Is not what you know, is who you know"
To understand this business world it helps to think that you need to be both: <strong>book smart and street smart</strong>, not only one or the other, both in a balanced way and you will be ahead of the pack.
</p>
irvine123_IHB
New member
completely agree with TROCK's comments in regards to the required "balance" between social skills and acedemic excellence in the corp. world. However, I think the story becomes a bit different if you just want to be a "professional" - like doctor, lawyer, who tend to have their business later on ( I won't consider engineers "professionals"). Jobs at corp world tend not to be as stable as those professional jobs, therefore a lot of parents do their best to encourage their kids to go to professional schools - med schools, law schools. The problem those kids / parents face is that it is extremely competitive to get into the top 20 schools. Well, they don't have any choice but to study really really hard if they want to get in. For those kids have no desire to become a lawyer, or doctor, they can be equally successfully in other fields that personality, and social skills tend to be more important, i.e. sales, etc. It is all about CHOICES.
If you become a doctor, you will probably make between 150K to 300K per year which is nearly guaranteed even if you have poor bedside manner and no personality. But if you have social skills and are able to promote yourself and get people to do things with you, then you can make millions as Dr. Weil (naturopath MD), Dr. Amen (brain imaging psychiatrist), Dr. Phil (not really MD but you know what I mean), and Dr. ?Gupta (that token Indian guy on CNN I believe).
There is also the Law of Diminishing Returns: you would probably get more out of life if you study four hours a day and practice or play on a basketball team two hours a day, compared to just studying 6 hours a day. The difference in your eventual grades may not be significant in the long run (except if you are trying to make valedictorian) compared to the health benefits and socializing you would get.
Off on somewhat of a tangent, would you rather have OK grades, go to Cal State Fullerton, then get straight A's and go to medical school? Or get A's in HS, go to Harvard, then get all B's and be forced to switch your major or go to a less competitive medical field?
There is also the Law of Diminishing Returns: you would probably get more out of life if you study four hours a day and practice or play on a basketball team two hours a day, compared to just studying 6 hours a day. The difference in your eventual grades may not be significant in the long run (except if you are trying to make valedictorian) compared to the health benefits and socializing you would get.
Off on somewhat of a tangent, would you rather have OK grades, go to Cal State Fullerton, then get straight A's and go to medical school? Or get A's in HS, go to Harvard, then get all B's and be forced to switch your major or go to a less competitive medical field?
bkshopr_IHB
New member
I went to an inner-city high school full of gangs and violence. My grades were average (lousy compared to Irvine standard). Many kids in today’s generation are spoiled and have a sense of entitlement. Parents worked extremely hard to provide for kids and they do not bother to appreciate them. At restaurants I see kids playing with Nintendo DS and not a word was exchanged between parents and child. Parents put so much hopes and pressure for their children to succeed academically children are extremely unhappy and will rebellious soon or later. The introverted nature is just the first symptom of a very long hard road ahead.
Many of you have wisdom and recognizing a fulfilled life is balance and harmony. I have studied several Chinese groups for almost thirty years. Following 3 generations the result I found are discouraging. Very few families have strong emotional tie between generations.
The goal of most generation 1.5 parents in the recent time wanted their kids to succeed are for a very different reason than their parents. It is a sense of duty to fulfill the grand parent’s legacy. The current 1.5 generation parents are mostly well educated and hold professional jobs. They are interested in the “trophy” kids for bragging. They belong to an elite class social circle. The parents of 1.5 generation worked in sweat shops and restaurants so their 1.5 generation kids would not be slaves like them and have a brighter future. The 1.5 generation is filial to their parents and would not want them to be disappointed if the grand children were to become academically challenged.
The Joy Luck Club attitude is quite common. Peer pressure among the parents to show off their kids’ accomplishment is routine in social gathering. San Ramon, Fremont, Irvine, Arcadia, San Marino, Cupertino, and Menlo Parks are area of high concentrations of Joy Luck Club activities. Another factor is the active local city council promoting strong cultural enrichments through cultural festivities, school, and centers thus encourages the politic of the elites.
Most 1.5 generation knew their shortcoming was in sports. Their parents did not take them to places where they could be exposed to tennis, swimming, skiing, boating, and etc. The current kids must go through the regiment of tutors, piano and violin lesson, and sports, all the luxuries that 1.5 generation did not have. Piano, violin and ballet in many Asian countries are hobbies of the royalties. Commoners could only admire them. In America all wishes could be fulfilled.
Academic and social skills must be balanced to a successful career. In relationship where social skill is paramount most Chinese kids go through years of tribulation and struggle before meeting some success. Most importantly, parents took great care and meeting all the needs of their kids. The two facets where parents failed most which further widen the generation gap are emotional support and issue of intimacy.
Many of you have wisdom and recognizing a fulfilled life is balance and harmony. I have studied several Chinese groups for almost thirty years. Following 3 generations the result I found are discouraging. Very few families have strong emotional tie between generations.
The goal of most generation 1.5 parents in the recent time wanted their kids to succeed are for a very different reason than their parents. It is a sense of duty to fulfill the grand parent’s legacy. The current 1.5 generation parents are mostly well educated and hold professional jobs. They are interested in the “trophy” kids for bragging. They belong to an elite class social circle. The parents of 1.5 generation worked in sweat shops and restaurants so their 1.5 generation kids would not be slaves like them and have a brighter future. The 1.5 generation is filial to their parents and would not want them to be disappointed if the grand children were to become academically challenged.
The Joy Luck Club attitude is quite common. Peer pressure among the parents to show off their kids’ accomplishment is routine in social gathering. San Ramon, Fremont, Irvine, Arcadia, San Marino, Cupertino, and Menlo Parks are area of high concentrations of Joy Luck Club activities. Another factor is the active local city council promoting strong cultural enrichments through cultural festivities, school, and centers thus encourages the politic of the elites.
Most 1.5 generation knew their shortcoming was in sports. Their parents did not take them to places where they could be exposed to tennis, swimming, skiing, boating, and etc. The current kids must go through the regiment of tutors, piano and violin lesson, and sports, all the luxuries that 1.5 generation did not have. Piano, violin and ballet in many Asian countries are hobbies of the royalties. Commoners could only admire them. In America all wishes could be fulfilled.
Academic and social skills must be balanced to a successful career. In relationship where social skill is paramount most Chinese kids go through years of tribulation and struggle before meeting some success. Most importantly, parents took great care and meeting all the needs of their kids. The two facets where parents failed most which further widen the generation gap are emotional support and issue of intimacy.
Nude_IHB
New member
<p>No offense folks, but excellent social skills aren't the job of schools, that is the jobs of parents and families to teach. <em>You have to share your toys, honey. We don't hit people, junior. </em>More importantly, excellent social skills are the result of patterns instilled long before kindergarten. </p>
<p>Are social skills important? Yes, as anyone who has run across an a**hole can attest. But a well-educated ass will go farther in this world than a very well-liked kid with no college degree. While that individual kid might have more fun playing sports with his friends and generally goofing off or playing video games after the homework is done, how much more fun is he going to have when he's 35? 45? 60? How far will charm take some one with a GED in the corporate world?</p>
<p>My point isn't that people need to shove their kids through a hyper-intense meat grinder in order to become a walking encyclopedia with a Mensa level IQ, it was that deliberately depriving your child of the absolute best possible education in the name of socialization is incredibly short-sighted. the most brilliant minds of our existence weren't reknown for their social skills, but I shudder to think what life would be like if they hadn't been graced with the education to match their intellect.</p>
<p>Are social skills important? Yes, as anyone who has run across an a**hole can attest. But a well-educated ass will go farther in this world than a very well-liked kid with no college degree. While that individual kid might have more fun playing sports with his friends and generally goofing off or playing video games after the homework is done, how much more fun is he going to have when he's 35? 45? 60? How far will charm take some one with a GED in the corporate world?</p>
<p>My point isn't that people need to shove their kids through a hyper-intense meat grinder in order to become a walking encyclopedia with a Mensa level IQ, it was that deliberately depriving your child of the absolute best possible education in the name of socialization is incredibly short-sighted. the most brilliant minds of our existence weren't reknown for their social skills, but I shudder to think what life would be like if they hadn't been graced with the education to match their intellect.</p>
Bubblegum_IHB
New member
IMO, education, while important, is not nearly as important as how you apply and leverage what you know, your attitude, drive, and ethics. I have friends who are Cal, UCSD, UCLA, Stanford, and USC graduates that seem no better off professionally or financially than CSULB or Cal Poly graduates. Ironically it's the students with middle of the road grades, who have applied themselves farther in their careers. They are more in touch with reality and have common sense (that isn't so common) with business and people.
I have a number of friends in professional fields (lawyers mostly, mgt consultants, and a few doctors) who are frankly, unhappy. It's unfortunate because they are all smart and very talented.
I have a number of friends in professional fields (lawyers mostly, mgt consultants, and a few doctors) who are frankly, unhappy. It's unfortunate because they are all smart and very talented.
Nude,
Those are Strawman arguments. I'm not talking about slacking off academically so much that you wind up having to get a GED or not even going to college. They have to get at least A's and B's, "good" grades.
<em>excellent social skills are the result of patterns instilled long before kindergarten
</em>I'm not talking about things like not yelling in class, no biting, don't pull your pants down in public. The "social skills" I'm referring to are being able to start and organize a fund-raiser successfully, being able to win on the debate team without hurting people, to be able to make your enemies into your friends by just talking about things, and being in a position such that your classmates keep on telling you to run for class president even though you keep telling them no. I guess on the other hand you can argue that President Bush has kindergarten level social skills.
<em>the most brilliant minds of our existence weren't reknown for their social skills, but I shudder to think what life would be like if they hadn't been graced with the education to match their intellect.</em>
The most brilliant minds (academically) also were not the richest people, nor had the most friends, nor had people WANTING to do their bidding and even die for them. Many had bad lives (behaving as if an ARM or a neg-am loan was hanging over their head ready to reset) and then they died in poverty only to be recognized by fellow academics with bad fashion sense. I shudder to think too what would have happened if they did not get a good education to match their mind.
I basically agree with you that if we put all our kids into the academic grinder and they come out as Mensa level a**holes, that the USA can dominate the world from an aggregate point of view.
Those are Strawman arguments. I'm not talking about slacking off academically so much that you wind up having to get a GED or not even going to college. They have to get at least A's and B's, "good" grades.
<em>excellent social skills are the result of patterns instilled long before kindergarten
</em>I'm not talking about things like not yelling in class, no biting, don't pull your pants down in public. The "social skills" I'm referring to are being able to start and organize a fund-raiser successfully, being able to win on the debate team without hurting people, to be able to make your enemies into your friends by just talking about things, and being in a position such that your classmates keep on telling you to run for class president even though you keep telling them no. I guess on the other hand you can argue that President Bush has kindergarten level social skills.
<em>the most brilliant minds of our existence weren't reknown for their social skills, but I shudder to think what life would be like if they hadn't been graced with the education to match their intellect.</em>
The most brilliant minds (academically) also were not the richest people, nor had the most friends, nor had people WANTING to do their bidding and even die for them. Many had bad lives (behaving as if an ARM or a neg-am loan was hanging over their head ready to reset) and then they died in poverty only to be recognized by fellow academics with bad fashion sense. I shudder to think too what would have happened if they did not get a good education to match their mind.
I basically agree with you that if we put all our kids into the academic grinder and they come out as Mensa level a**holes, that the USA can dominate the world from an aggregate point of view.
Nude_IHB
New member
<p>I'm sorry TRock, but winning popularity contests isn't something I think kids should be striving for in school. While I will freely admit it's a nice attribute to have, I doubt anyone would rank it above being able to pass the SAT's, or a bar exam, or MCATs, or other requirement to move into higher academic/professional ranks. While your approach may be perfect for breeding politicians, debutantes, and game show hosts I think most people would agree that they shouldn't be goals in and of themselves. Putting a high priority on that kind of socialization and self-promotion smacks of preening parenthood, no doubt placing a high amount of stress on a child to "succeed" in interpersonal relationships at a time when peer pressure is already beginning to mount. I'd rather have my child be recognized and rewarded because their ideas were better, not because they have people wanting to die for them. </p>
<p>I don't care if the USA dominates the world, I care that our kids are pushed to reach their potential while they have a chance to make the most out of their lives. Your claim that "at least A's and B's" are good enough implies that 'good enough' can be combined with charm and a list of who's who to make them succesful. Your personal bias towards the social graces notwithstanding, why would anyone intentionally handicap their child when their peers are clearly going to beat them out at every given opportunity? And yet, you argue for that very thing in your CSUF vs. Harvard comment. </p>
<p>You attack my points with claims of logical fallacies, and then turn around and claim the world's best minds are dying, penniless, in slums. That might have been true in some cases 70+ years ago but certainly not all or even "many" suffered that fate. Our culture has evolved into a meritocracy that celebrates and rewards academic excellence and you'd be hard pressed to prove your claim applied to today's brilliant minds. Let's try this: Your entire argument is a classic appeal to popularity, stating something as true simply because most people believe or want to believe it's true. Unless you've got some hard numbers, please state your opinion as opinion, not as facts. Also, quit using guilt by association to bootstrap your argument; it's tedious and a tad immature.</p>
<p>With all that said, I'm done arguing. Feel free to reply if you must, but we've strayed way off the OT, and I made my point. Arguing about my opinion isn't going to change it.</p>
<p>I don't care if the USA dominates the world, I care that our kids are pushed to reach their potential while they have a chance to make the most out of their lives. Your claim that "at least A's and B's" are good enough implies that 'good enough' can be combined with charm and a list of who's who to make them succesful. Your personal bias towards the social graces notwithstanding, why would anyone intentionally handicap their child when their peers are clearly going to beat them out at every given opportunity? And yet, you argue for that very thing in your CSUF vs. Harvard comment. </p>
<p>You attack my points with claims of logical fallacies, and then turn around and claim the world's best minds are dying, penniless, in slums. That might have been true in some cases 70+ years ago but certainly not all or even "many" suffered that fate. Our culture has evolved into a meritocracy that celebrates and rewards academic excellence and you'd be hard pressed to prove your claim applied to today's brilliant minds. Let's try this: Your entire argument is a classic appeal to popularity, stating something as true simply because most people believe or want to believe it's true. Unless you've got some hard numbers, please state your opinion as opinion, not as facts. Also, quit using guilt by association to bootstrap your argument; it's tedious and a tad immature.</p>
<p>With all that said, I'm done arguing. Feel free to reply if you must, but we've strayed way off the OT, and I made my point. Arguing about my opinion isn't going to change it.</p>
EvaLSeraphim_IHB
New member
Awgee - thanks for sharing that. It's a conclusion I was not expecting. I wonder if it has to do with being around an adult all day.
Nude - I think you're taking TRock's point and stretching it beyond where he was going. Wasn't there a book out in the last few years "Social IQ" or something? IIRC, many follow up studies have found its importance. I used to practice at some big firms. The lawyers who were "personable" generally took in more money, while the "smarter" lawyers were working for the personable ones. Why? Because the personable ones took the time and were able to draw in more clients. My takeaway from TR's comments were not that Johnny / Jane should be giving up math, reading, or social studies to learn how to set goals and build self esteem, it was that while academics are important, they are not so important that a child should be left socially stunted as a result of focusing all their time on them. I don't know of anyone who would want their child to be one of The Real Bimbos of OC.
Nude - I think you're taking TRock's point and stretching it beyond where he was going. Wasn't there a book out in the last few years "Social IQ" or something? IIRC, many follow up studies have found its importance. I used to practice at some big firms. The lawyers who were "personable" generally took in more money, while the "smarter" lawyers were working for the personable ones. Why? Because the personable ones took the time and were able to draw in more clients. My takeaway from TR's comments were not that Johnny / Jane should be giving up math, reading, or social studies to learn how to set goals and build self esteem, it was that while academics are important, they are not so important that a child should be left socially stunted as a result of focusing all their time on them. I don't know of anyone who would want their child to be one of The Real Bimbos of OC.