|
|
洛杉机华人区爬藤探讨
$ K, G: {. B0 f- y# k6 G
9 E+ R4 Q6 s8 a! j! { ]) _来源Aresident于2011-05-01& m/ A# x: I6 I7 {- o6 \: k
6 \" G5 B2 g1 ?0 b2 R$ P& _! m
% x( O4 X3 c) L/ [最近小孩小学毕业,我也开始对洛杉机华人区高中开始研究。不怕诸位砸砖,我是比较热衷爬大藤。现在和大家分享一些信息,抛砖引玉。信息不全,请洛杉机华人朋友多多补充。我心目中的大藤含五所大学,Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Princeton.洛杉机好的私高,有Polytech, Harvard Westlake, and Chadwick,很难考进,学费较高。洛杉机华人区,学区好的有Whitney High (Cerritos), San Marino, Arcadia, South Pasadena, Walnut, Diamond Bar, University High (Irvine),Parlos Verdes (Peninsula High and Parlos Verdes High), La Canada. 这些学校很多不公布爬藤报喜榜,所以我的信息支离破碎,请大家补充。Whitney High在南加公立高中排名第一,需选拔入学,亚裔众 多(74.9% Asian, 7.3% White), 2010年高三有169名学生,爬大藤方面,是3 accepted by Stanford and 1 by Yale,其余可能是0,似乎难以匹配南加第一的名头。San Marino是南加传统白人富人区,只有single family house,不过现在已沦陷,成了亚裔富人区,高三约282学生,约63% Asian and 28% white。2010年有3 for Stanford and 2 for Yale,比想象中华人西区第一名校有些距离。Arcadia应是华人西区第二名校,人口涵盖很多富人,中产,及少数新移民, 也有小孩在上学而父母在国内的。学生众多,高三约887人。69% Asian and 18% white. 2010年有1 for Harvard, 2 for MIT, 3 for Princeton, 3 for Stanford, and 2 for Yale.Walnut and Diamond Bar是华人东区名校,不过我没能找到爬藤数据。Parlos Verdes离华人中心区较为远,华人较不熟悉,Peninsula High 2010年有580高三学生,39% Asian and 45% Caucasian,6 for Harvard, 5 for MIT, 5 for Princeton, 10 for Stanford, and 3 for Yale.整体而言我有以下观察:华人占多数的高中名校,以Whitney High, San Marino High, and Arcadia High 为代表,1。似乎爬藤比例并不高,与国内的名校如人大附中爬北清差距较大。2。过去十年似乎爬藤有滑落趋势。 原因是什么呢?我有以下猜测:1.藤校一般较注重综合素质如领袖能力和社区服务,又讲究学生的独特性如某方面的特殊才能(体育,艺术,研究),会不会是我 们华人家长太注重成绩(GPA and SAT),而忽略了全面发展?2。种族因素。可能顶级私立大学就是不想招太多亚裔?请大家讨论。
0 y. z8 A$ F* f$ K& M
* P8 z3 W4 |" t- F; C$ z3 e* i3 R! n& N2 x' c
7 X% Q. | R( x' O- u/ j% K补充:* _2 d& `2 x4 r: ^* z F) f# F' S
: Z1 @# ^6 L0 k$ R7 \0 X( P: A4 ^Top 25 of America's Best High Schools - Gold Medal Rank
0 P. f3 B! f1 m7 }/ R
2 s( w' |% J# C) x8 V/ _* K; T1. Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology
- X8 [3 T: f4 Q6 x
; Q' B4 w) y: R: T' SLocation: Alexandria, VA
! a) r( j; r) t3 {. ]8 EEnrollment: 1,805$ n U* L$ M0 K
Economically Disadvantaged Students (% of Total Enrollment): 1.3 D5 a; `5 E8 i7 A% ?
Minority Enrollment (% of Total): 4.9
S) K3 h* G4 j- oQuality-Adjusted Exams Per Test Taker: 6.9
1 J) N( s d b& T$ hCollege Readiness Index: 100.0
& z( J' x4 M' x% S* e S% P4 D' z! x% L8 N3 T4 ~
2. International Academy: `& n3 l. _$ C5 I
- d% C4 P2 B: X1 k2 N1 X7 f
Location: Bloomfield Hills, MI( i1 x/ t) O- w9 g% S( l$ Z
Enrollment: 1576 s! p0 d1 L$ ]1 d1 o- E
Economically Disadvantaged Students (% of Total Enrollment): 0.6
4 e/ J- S, T \5 M: l! [6 tMinority Enrollment (% of Total): 3.2" D2 b& ~% p2 P* @
Quality-Adjusted Exams Per Test Taker: 5.7
) I0 f0 y" @! i! X; {4 K3 kCollege Readiness Index: 100.03 I" U2 [5 V y0 b+ a* o1 `
8 e ]: l, {/ N0 f3. Whitney High School
3 |/ l6 R* G y2 R# [* q$ J# @0 }8 n! ~- Y w
Location: Cerritos, CA
3 O2 ?9 g5 }6 g/ e$ g5 E9 kEnrollment: 984
$ o' w* N3 ~/ m' s# g: @. EEconomically Disadvantaged Students (% of Total Enrollment): 11.01 f' Y# B# I& ~" q
Minority Enrollment (% of Total): 11.5& N% K6 R1 x0 R. D- c! Z* P
Quality-Adjusted Exams Per Test Taker: 4.1
* E; H$ |; h) a' _7 V" X3 FCollege Readiness Index: 100.00 J' r. \3 P6 r! F& I( Y
" r& S3 w5 r) q6 Y
4. Oxford Academy
, K1 x) y& T3 x& W ^ f4 a9 m5 _. r+ J. Q% F7 q. y
Location: Cypress, CA
) t$ p Y, d' \' _# cEnrollment: 1.021: ]6 S, n4 t; S& X) [' K8 f2 L) ?
Economically Disadvantaged Students (% of Total Enrollment): 19.0. |" Y) i% l3 a* u& |
Minority Enrollment (% of Total): 12.7- M* s g! ^4 f5 m7 t
Quality-Adjusted Exams Per Test Taker: 5.0 e6 t1 q/ I8 {; F$ M
College Readiness Index: 100.0
* U9 \: W/ l& L, N/ C6 e* O) O0 E4 K5 s. T: A& d) m
5. School for the Talented and Gifted at Yvonne A. Ewell Townview Center
, A5 T5 H" U$ R5 [3 a: I; F5 x' |! n- F" c: F Q
Location: Dallas, TX5 j9 P3 y, p4 z0 ]6 j+ C
Enrollment: 2090 L1 m; `5 L% D! v
Economically Disadvantaged Students (% of Total Enrollment): 24.95 X" o# P t: Z( f2 z" ?
Minority Enrollment (% of Total): 51.2 n2 k3 @1 z% |% j2 s/ [
Quality-Adjusted Exams Per Test Taker: 8.0. B' V' f: F- E3 [! D% W' `8 W
College Readiness Index: 100.02 A R; ]/ t& T
* m% Z$ _4 W# A/ {6. Newcomers High School
& V1 b3 n; V% O! a9 `" E4 [5 F1 \7 Y2 g
Location: Long Island City, NY8 d% g% x! p/ f Y3 y" E" u" k% C" u
Enrollment: 1,016
[% Z+ D- F1 ?* a8 n7 aEconomically Disadvantaged Students (% of Total Enrollment): 79.06 e4 J, x1 [/ c
Minority Enrollment (% of Total): 60.7( M7 i) f# j5 ]' m2 A7 Y0 J
Quality-Adjusted Exams Per Test Taker: 1.6 v" M' O% Z7 s* k" O" M
College Readiness Index: 100.0, i' B: D: r% r3 R/ G3 Q# g1 l
. Y" |& S- P! Y& b; S/ h
7. Pacific Collegiate School
2 a0 N# J1 e9 b n' d# l: H
9 U* z2 z7 E* D9 T0 GLocation: Santa Cruz, CA8 ]% o, B1 p3 x7 z+ ?: U: u
Enrollment: 383
' ~6 H4 i$ c2 E& J% }3 KEconomically Disadvantaged Students (% of Total Enrollment): 0.0
: j, I* _/ A( ]" S6 B$ a% WMinority Enrollment (% of Total): 8.4
# `! J( R) z+ \* b: P: V$ zQuality-Adjusted Exams Per Test Taker: 4.59 f( ?$ u. M* t6 h3 P
College Readiness Index: 100.0
! g2 S, ]) \2 I9 l2 [
' Q8 R& b" c, Z9 }4 s8. School of Science and Engineering Magnet9 c# P3 I8 r$ a/ p* Y& ]0 u0 T. F
4 L5 U3 b, e1 Z
Location: Dallas, TX
+ J* R" [* C# M0 ^" YEnrollment: 391
4 F$ m2 Q# ?8 W5 P5 c( O9 ]$ ~Economically Disadvantaged Students (% of Total Enrollment): 48.3+ R" X9 i. A2 r3 Z0 ?
Minority Enrollment (% of Total): 72.4% l: M8 B/ B4 {4 W1 _
Quality-Adjusted Exams Per Test Taker: 5.1, e8 {' W& j. x) k4 w
College Readiness Index: 100.0
& o( Y! P, E+ Q$ Q: D+ _- B: Z1 H+ l! J5 n" C9 h! q+ l0 T
9. BASIS Tucson; b2 m4 q2 K( G4 f* ]) ^5 n
$ ]) h: ~$ V) v7 g; _Location: Tucson, AZ* W/ X" t1 ^7 a5 U! q3 x9 W0 t
Enrollment: 527; S7 l/ P7 s, N p/ C4 Y0 K
Economically Disadvantaged Students (% of Total Enrollment): 0.0
, ?+ R4 E# u; m1 x7 i( `Minority Enrollment (% of Total): 24.93 r5 p* Q0 g; I' F1 ?
Quality-Adjusted Exams Per Test Taker: 4.7
1 i7 e) c- f( N$ U+ S# ]College Readiness Index: 100.0
3 X9 f4 D8 H" Q6 M# S( v* E. u( t9 f5 @/ U
10. International School4 c1 ^( T [& n2 D2 B
. B0 W, U# ^+ Y5 W5 j/ L2 d8 a2 p3 |1 Z- LLocation: Bellevue, WA7 U: W0 V& k2 \, Y/ D0 [0 H7 u
Enrollment: 509
5 j: M( I5 |! h# [7 k( z& Q8 CEconomically Disadvantaged Students (% of Total Enrollment): 3.6
' a n, A1 Z2 rMinority Enrollment (% of Total): 1.7! ~# p9 |, i. t; O8 B. j' \0 ?+ Y
Quality-Adjusted Exams Per Test Taker: 3.8# J! X8 O4 {* c& i! _: {9 j: P9 y
College Readiness Index: 100.0 |
|