[an]

[quote=ocrenter]the correlation between socioeconomic standing of a community and the API of the schools within the community is almost a perfect match.

the rise of San Marcos High is the perfect example. Dramatic influx of upper middle income group from SEH and eastern Carlsbad reshaped the school.

the only exception to this rule is if a school is Asian dominated, it can achieve higher API even if it is lower on the socioeconomic scale.

such is the case of MMHS, from the census data, looks like there’s been some significant white flight of 5k in 92126 over the last 10 years, with all Asian replacements, result is higher API without the dramatic socioeconomic change seen with San Marcos.[/quote]
I agree with your 1st statement. However, I’m not 100% sure about your exception assertion. We all can agree with MMHS have been on an upward trajectory in API score. However, I’m not sure if we can attribute it to the Asian. In 2002, here’s MMHS’s demographic:
African American (not of Hispanic origin) 7
American Indian or Alaska Native 0
Asian 18
Filipino 35
Hispanic or Latino 10
Pacific Islander 1
White (not of Hispanic origin) 29

Here is MMHS’s demographic in 2012:
Black or African American 7
American Indian or Alaska Native 0
Asian 19
Filipino 27
Hispanic or Latino 21
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1
White 17

The Asian demographic only increased by 1%. The Filipino demographic decreased by 8%. The White decreased by 12%, but the Hispanic INCREASED by 11%. So, if I read that right, the White demographic is actually being replaced by Hispanic instead of Asian. The big thing to noticed though is how well the Hispanic demographics in MMHS score in API compare to others. MMHS Hispanics score in the low 800s while TPHS are in the mid 700s and Del Norte HS is in the low 700s. In this past year, Hispanics in MMHS had a jump of 30 points.

So, although stereotypically speaking, higher API score is tied to socioeconomics. I’m sure there are many many exceptions to that stereotype. Another comparison that would challenge this stereo type is, why Point Loma HS and UCHS score below MMHS, yet, they’re both in much more expensive areas.

[an]

[quote=ocrenter]API = great way for parents to figure out if they’ll fit in socioeconomically.[/quote]
How so?

[an]

[quote=Essbee]Hopefully, you are right. My kids haven’t even started kindergarten yet, so only time will tell![/quote]Here are some anecdotal stories. My wife and her HS friends all graduated from a HS w/ a API rank of 1. So, it’s basically as bad as you can get. All of her closest friends are valedictorians or very close to it. One went to UCLA, 2 went to UCSD, and 1 went to BU. So, just because they were huge fishes in a tiny pond, that didn’t stop them from going on and achieving what they set out to. So, your kids will do just fine, as long as you’re by their side to push them and guide them.

Also, there’s no reason to be too concern about HS API right now, since your kids are so young. It’s fun to talk about it, but I wouldn’t worry too much. An area can change, API can change, etc. by the time your kids reach HS level. Maybe, you might move before they reach HS too, so, no need to fret now.

[an]

[quote=Essbee]
HEY, wait… you missed my alma mater:
Patrick Henry High 815[/quote]You’re right, I missed Patrick Henry. I also missed San Diego SCPA. San Diego SCPA have a total of 1140 students, which is pretty close to the student size of Mt. Carmel and Del Norte. It actually have more students than LJHS. Their score is also 820. So, with Patrick Henry and SD SCPA, the average is probably even closer to PUSD, but I think PUSD average still have a slight advantage.
[quote=Essbee]Anyway, I’m fine with you making this argument that the top half of SDUSD is on par with the entire PUSD. I grew up in SDUSD and attended the seminar program at Hearst Elementary and Lewis Jr HS, and then had a very strong education with 8 AP classes at Patrick Henry HS. I got to be a bit of a “big fish in a little pond” and it served me well. In fact, having recently moved to PUSD, I have some concerns that my own kids could get lost in sea of high achievers… time shall tell![/quote]I wouldn’t worry too much about your kids’ getting lost in a sea of high achievers. The number doesn’t show there are any more high achievers in PUSD schools than the top 5 HS in SDUSD. If your kid can be a “big fish in a small pond” in the top 5 SDUSD HS, then he probably will be just as big of a fish in PUSD as well.

[an]

Alright, if you take exception to those special schools in SDUSD, lets look at the top 5 traditional HS in SDUSD.
Scripps Ranch High 900
Mira Mesa High 861
La Jolla High 854
University City High 825
Point Loma High 812

Now, lets reorder the PUSD:
Westview High 872
Poway High 868
Del Norte High 865
Rancho Bernardo High 848
Mt. Carmel High 821

So, the top SDUSD school score 28 points higher than the top PUSD school. The 5th SDUSD school score 9 points lower than the 5th PUSD school. So, SDUSD have a bigger varriance than PUSD. Now, the average for PUSD is still slightly higher. PUSD average is 854 while SDUSD average is 850. That’s less than 0.5% different. Not a big deal to me.

When you count those special schools w/in SDUSD, then the top 7 schools does out pace PUSD. I don’t know why you take exception to those special schools w/in SDUSD. If you live in SDUSD and want to, you can apply to get your kids into those special schools, minus the Preuss School. If you just count traditional HS, then SDUSD, IMHO, is on par with PUSD.

[an]

One thing I found interesting is that SRHS blew away ALL of the schools in Poway Unified. If I was a resident or buyer at Stonebridge, I probably would have preferred that my kids go to SRHS instead of any HS in Poway Unified.

Another thing interesting is… here are all the HS in Poway Unified:
Del Norte High 865
Mt. Carmel High 821
Poway High 868
Rancho Bernardo High 848
Westview High 872

Here are all the HS in San Dieguito Union High too:
Canyon Crest Academy 917
La Costa Canyon High 834
San Dieguito High Academy 852
Torrey Pines High 888

Here are the top 7 HS in SDUSD:
Scripps Ranch High 900
Preuss School UCSD 892
Kearny International Business 887
Mt. Everest Academy 873
San Diego International Studies 871
Mira Mesa High 861
La Jolla High 854

It seems like the top 7 HS in SDUSD does a decent job in out placing Poway Unified HS. Not to mention the fact that the top 4 does better than Poway’s best, which is Westview. Then there’s the coveted San Dieguito. SDUSD’s top 4 average out higher than SDUH 4 HS. What’s also funny is, MMHS, which is #6 in SDUSD scores better than 2 out of the 4 HS in SDUH.

[an]

Wow, MMHS beating out LJHS. That’s a first.

[an]

[quote=spdrun]However, are you really going to choose where you live based on whether you can add a turbo to a car legally?! [/quote]
No, I wouldn’t leave CA because of CARB. But that doesn’t mean I like the idea of CARB. I don’t mind smogging my car. I also don’t mind having a requirement that force cars on the road to be safe (brakes, suspensions, etc). But that’s not the point. However, CARB is more than smogging.

So, I’ll reiterate my answers to your original question:
[quote=spdrun]Would you like to live in CA if CARB didn’t exist? [/quote] Hell yeah I would like to live in CA if CARB didn’t exist. I never said I would leave CA because CARB exist, but I would love it more living here if CARB goes away.

BTW, which state see the pollution goes up due to not having CARB like bureaucracy?

[an]

[quote=ocrenter]despite CARB, CA still occupy 9 of the top 10 cities on the worse smog list of the country. SD is actually #7 smoggiest of the country.

geography and climate and over-reliance on cars are to blame.

So what should we do if CARB is too strict? let loose since we’re going to have smog no matter what? what would be the alternative?[/quote]
We can ban cars. The smogs will go away. People will be more fit and lean. Win-win.

[an]

[quote=Ren]The problem with CARB is they are unnecessarily strict. Why should it be illegal to slap a bigger turbo on a motor if I can still pass a sniff test?

Edit: i.e., I should have as much right to power as a Corvette if the emissions are just as clean.[/quote]
+1, my point exactly. If it’s about keeping the air clean, then it shouldn’t matter if you slap a turbo on your car or install a bigger motor. In CA, you can slap a bigger motor and reregister your car as the car that the engine came from. However, you can’t slap a turbo on your current engine. Even if it’s actually cleaner to go the turbo route.

[an]

[quote=spdrun]Yeah: some did see their pollution levels go up. And BTW, a lot of states that aren’t California follow CA emission standards for new cars, as well as having smog checks. Until we end up with all electric and/or hydrogen cars, smog bureaucracies are a necessary evil.[/quote]
Which state? Why not all if CARB is so great and the other states doesn’t have CARB? CARB is MORE than just smog check. No, CARB is not a necessary evil. They’re just evil.

[an]

[quote=spdrun]Would you like to live in CA if CARB didn’t exist? Smog has gone waaay down since the 80s, in no small part due to stringent regulations. True, there’s a lot of unneeded bureaucracy, but I’ll take the bad with the good.[/quote]
HELL YEAH I would. Did the other states with no CARB see their emission go way up?

[an]

[quote=spdrun]Doing the right thing isn’t always cheapest. Deal with it.[/quote]
Right thing? hahah, that’s some funny stuff.

[an]

[quote=Diego Mamani]Cramer The Clown badmouthed CEL yesterday, and now the price is down… Interestingly, he endorsed AGNC, which continued its upward trend.[/quote]It’s only down 2% today. Even after today, I’m still up 31% on CEL. ~5% of that 31% is from dividend. So, as long as their dividend maintains, I’m not too worried. Their current P/E is 5.76. So, I’m not too worried about cutting of dividend either.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]AN,

Let’s assume the siblings are identical twins. If that’s the case, then the one who doesn’t exercise and eats fast food is certainly more likely to be overweight and have a heart attack, though it’s still not 100%.

Like I’ve said before, nobody is saying that morbid obesity is healthy, but we don’t all need to look like formless broom sticks in order to be healthy. We need to focus more on **health** and less on appearance because appearances can be very deceiving.[/quote]
Please stop putting words in my mouth and proceed to debate against said word. It’s what one would call a straw man argument.

I never said we all need to look anorexic, bulimic, or other eating disorder. Like you constantly repeated, we need to focus more on health. Guess what, there have been countless studies that prove that when you become overweight, your risk of getting certain type of disease increase. It doesn’t mean your risk goes to 100% and you’re 100% likely will get those disease. However, it has proven that you’re more likely to get those disease compare to if you’re average weight.

So, going back to my identical twins example, I NEVER said the brother who eat badly and don’t exercise have 100% chance of being fat and have 100% of getting a heart attack. If you reread my post carefully, you’ll see that I asked who’s MORE LIKELY to be fat and who’s MORE LIKELY to get a heart attack. Increase likelihood is FAR from 100%.

Again, I hope you can tell the difference between probability of getting sick vs probability of staying alive after you got the sickness. This new article you posted show that fat people fare better than skinny and normal weight counter part who also have heart disease. But, let me ask you, what’s the % of fat people getting heart disease vs % of skinny and average weight people getting heart disease. How about diabetes? This is where the “increase risk” of developing health problem statement comes from. It’s not that you’re guarantee that you’ll get these disease when you’re fat. It’s just that you’re more likely to develop these disease compare to if you’re normal weight.

Also, your article stated this:
‘However, there appears to be a sub-set of obese people who seem to be protected from obesity-related metabolic complications. ‘Our study suggests that metabolically healthy but obese people have a better fitness level than the rest of obese individuals. ‘We believe that getting more exercise broadly and positively influences major body systems and organs and consequently contributes to make someone metabolically healthier, including obese people. ‘In our study, we measure fitness, which is largely influenced by exercise.’
‘Our data support the idea that interventions might be more urgently needed in metabolically unhealthy and unfit obese people, since they are at a higher risk. This research highlights once again the important role of physical fitness as a health marker.’

So, the way I read that is, not all fat people are unhealthy, but nowhere in that article did I see someone say obese people on average are more healthy than average weight people. It said not all obese people are predisposition to getting chronic diseases.

Let me ask you a few simple questions, how do you think one gets fat? It’s it not a simple equation of caloric intake vs caloric expense? Doesn’t excess calories get stored as fat? Which scenario would make you more healthy, scenario a, where you consumes more calories than their exercise and daily activity can expend, so you store that as fat. Or scenario b, where you reduce you caloric intake to a point where it’s even with your expense so there’s nothing left to store as fat.

[Author]

Posts