How did you know that a non-weighted gpa would be penalized regarding merit aid? Was it stated on the college website or did you have to call and ask?

One of the schools one of my kids applied to required a letter of recommendation from a humanities teacher and another from a math/science teacher. His AP English Language teacher from PAH wrote one of the recommendations, but since it had been a few years since he had taken an outside class for math/science, he had his research mentor write the other recommendation. That approach was fine even though the recommender was not associated with a school. Good luck to your daughter!

I also list the class as physics with lab, for example. However, at the AP level, I omit "with lab" on the transcript since in order to receive AP designation, a lab must be included in the course. I also only award 1 credit for the course.

I haven't read the other replies, so hopefully my comments are not too repetive from what has already been said. My kids all graduated from our homeschool at the typical age of 18. I don't think they would have been accepted to the colleges they are attending had they graduated earlier because their extra curricular activities would not have been as strong when they were younger. For example, one of my kids conducted research once a week and more hours in the summer. However, he was not permitted to begin the research until he turned 16 as that was the minimum age established by the hospital. His research ended up being published in multiple medical journals (he was 2nd author) and winning international awards. Had he graduated early, he would not have had this on his resume when he applied to colleges. My kids were also able to go into college with quite a few credits. Their schools do not accept many AP credits, but they do permit the kids to take departmental exams for credit. My current senior has enough credits that he could have graduated from his school early had he wanted to or needed to. Every situation is different. For my kids, graduating at 18 was definitely the right decision.

One can admire someone and think that they have an excellent character, yet still not agree with every comment that they make.

This thought crossed my mind as well. While my kids will never be on tv, they have played in pro events and been in the players lounge with the players who are on tv. They are friends with (and have won matches against) other kids who have turned pro. There are a handful of these kids that they know, that when losing to an opponent that they would be embarrassed to lose to, will purposely behave badly in order to get enough code violations to be disqualified from the match. Than, the kid can save face and say that he actually wasn't beaten by a player that he believes is not as good as he is. Instead, he can say that he lost because of the chair umpire.

Billie Jean-King's comment is simply not true - the men suffer repercussions for their outbursts as well. This same umpire gave Andy Murray a code violation for calling him "stupid". "Stupid" doesn't even seem as bad as saying 'thief and liar". Where is the double standard? More voices need to be coming out saying that it is time for people to take responsibility for their actions. Those are the voices I would like to hear.

Serena was issued a warning for the coaching violation. In tennis, a code violation and a warning can be used interchangeably for the first offense. The chair umpire elected not to issue Serena a point penalty for this first code violation that was issued because Serena's coach was coaching her. (which her coach has admitted he was doing.) The chair umpire is only permitted to issue one warning. All other subsequent violations must be penalized. When Serena abused her racquet, that was her second code violation. Since this was her second offense, the chair umpire had to give her a point penalty - he had no choice- those are the rules in tennis. When Serena called the chair umpire a thief and a liar, the chair ump gave her her third code violation. Since she got a free pass for her first violation, this third violation resulted in a game penalty. Had she not received a warning for her first offense, the third violation would have been an automatic default. For the record, I like Serena. She behaved badly in this match. She was penalized for her behavior. This same umpire has penalized the top men players for the exact same offenses. This is not about Serena being a female. This incident is about Serena behaving badly. Serena needs to take responsibility for her actions and not blame the consequences of her actions on her being a woman. ETA: Here is the progression of penalties for code violations First violation - (if the umpire doesn't grant a warning) a point penalty Second violation - a game penalty Third violation - the player defaults the match

Exactly. Men have be dinged by this chair ump for the exact same behaviors. This is not about the sex of the player. This issue is about the rules not being applied consistently from one chair umpire to the next. This is what the powers to be in tennis should be addressing. Serena broke the rules three separate times. She happened to have a chair umpire officiating that penalizes players, both men and women, for breaking these rules. She is a professional and knows better.

I agree. The discrepancy between the chair umps is the problem.

Where is the proof that this chair umpire has treated the men differently than the women?

This! McEnroe got a point penalty, game penalty and match penalty during the 1990 Australian Open for his verbal comments and racquet abuse. Serena is not a victim in this.

I don't know because the data does not support that claim: During the three previous Grand Slams — the French Open, Wimbledon and Australian Open — men were assessed 59 code violations, almost twice as many as the women. The men were issued violations for coaching nine times and the most common violation was abuse of racket/equipment 19 times.

Does this chair umpire have a different set of requirements for men vs women? I don't think so: During the 2016 Olympics, Ramos issued a code violation to Andy Murray after thinking Murray had called Ramos “stupid.’’ Murray later claimed he said “stupid umpiring,’’ not “stupid umpire.” During a fourth-round match at the 2017 French Open, Rafael Nadal lost a first serve after Ramos issued a code violation for Nadal taking too much time. Nadal later fired back, saying Ramos would “never chair another of his matches again.” In July at Wimbledon, Ramos issued Novak Djokovic a code violation for unsportsmanlike conduct because Djokovic threw his racket to the ground. Now, I doubt that this would have happened had someone else been sitting in the chair, but that is different than saying the standard is different for women than it is for men. This chair ump has a reputation. Serena knows that -- all the players know that. Anyone who has played any competitive tennis knows that you are walking on thin ice once you get a point penalty. Anyone who has played any competitive tennis knows to especially keep her/his head down when you get into this type of situation with a chair umpire on a power trip.

I think the problem is that the rules for poor behavior are enforced unequally depending on the chair umpire. The chair umpire Carlos Ramos has a reputation for being a stickler for the rules. The men on the tour have suffered the same consequences for the same behaviors when Ramos is officiating their matches. All players know what they can and can't get away with during a match depends to some degree on the chair umpire. They know that they need to be careful when Ramos is sitting in the chair. Serena's problem was that she let things escalate and had accumulated multiple infractions. First violation is a warning, 2nd violation is a point penalty, third violation is a game penalty. I believe with this chair umpire, a man would have suffered the same consequences for his poor behavior - and smashing a racquet and calling the chair umpire a liar and a thief is poor behavior. The person I feel sorry for in all of this is the other woman on the court - Naomi Osaka.

My guess is that they have had some issue with some of the proctors not following the protocol when administering the tests. It is a shame as many homeschoolers will now be shut out from participating as other schools may not permit homeschoolers to take the test at their facilities. ETA: Another reason, probably more likely than the proctor not following protocol is test security. It has been a few years since my kid participated, but our librarian proctored the exam. Once the exam was over, the librarian took my kid's exam to mail, but gave me all of the remaining contents of the packet that the AMC folks had sent to her. The remaining contents of the packet contained the unused AMC exams that were in the bundle that we had to order. Theoretically, I could have given one of these extra unused exam to someone else who was planning on taking the exam later in the day. This student could have had hours to study the test before he went in to take the proctored exam.

My kids have reused their own essays. Since it is their own work, I don't consider that to be plagiarizing.

The bolded is a very important piece to keep in mind when evaluating scores and chances to qualify for National Merit. You can't really compare the composite ACT or the composite SAT score or the composite PSAT score to determine if your child is in range for National Merit. For example, my current senior's overall composite PSAT score was in range for National Merit, but she is stronger in math than EBRW. Since the EBRW score is given double the weight of the math score, she missed the National Merit Semi-Finalist cutoff when other students who had a lower composite PSAT score made the cut-off.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against the College Board. Hopefully, this lawsuit will have traction and will put a stop to the ridiculous practice by both the ACT and SAT of recycling tests. https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2018/09/04/class-action-adds-problems-college-board

I always chose the graduation date to be about two weeks past the end date of their last outside class. That way, if we got behind a little bit in our "home-brewed" classes due to the end of year craziness of online final exams and days eaten up with AP exams, the kids had two weeks at the end to devote to wrapping up the stuff they did with me.

My two college kids both used AP credit to place out of Calc I and Calc II, but they still were not permitted to use any type of calculator in their math and science classes their first year and beyond. There are many sections of the AP calc exam that also prohibit the use of a calculator. There are also some sections that do require the use of a calculator, but even those sections require the student to show the set-up of the problem and to justify the answer steps which require a conceptual understanding of the concepts. Many times the calculator is required to either integrate or differentiate a complicated function such as when finding the area between two curves of polar equations. Even if your student did not know how to use a graphing calculator, he could still receive many points on a FRQ by simply setting up the problem correctly. Fwiw, my kids all got 5's on the AP Calc BC exam and did the vast majority of their calculus problems throughout the year without using a calculator. It took them less than 15 minutes to learn how to use their graphing calculators to solve the problems on the AP exam that did require a calculator to solve.

I would list the class as honors and also list the provider. In my school profile, I would state the criteria for the honors designation. For example, AoPS has a blurb in the front of their textbooks stating that the books are written for top 2 percent of math students( or something similar I don't have a book with me now to check). WTMA rhetoric classes use college level textbooks and I would site that as reason for honors, etc

Fwiw, I didn't list Algebra I on any of my kid's transcripts, but I did list Algebra II and geometry even though they were also taken before high school. They were included in the high school gpa since that is common practice in my area public schools.

I am snowbeltmom. (I had to change my username to get back in after the change-over) I ended up not listing the AoPS classes as honors. I kept the same approach with my daughter as I did with my boys. She is applying this year, but the schools on her list that award merit base the merit awards on gpa and standardized test scores. If she had been applying to schools that are a little more "fuzzy" with their merit criteria, and I thought that the honors designation would have made a difference in how the transcript was interpreted, I would have tried to figure out the weighted gpa formulae and listed all of her English, Math, and Science classes as honors.

The same is happening in some pockets of my area. Math tutors are in high demand. I tutor kids after school, and I am usually booked from 3 pm - 7pm, sometimes 8 pm every week night plus Saturdays. (I turn down Sunday requests). Many of the families reserve a time slot to meet once a week for the entire school year. Just recently, I had a new family call me inquiring if I could teach calculus to their son. I didn't quite understand the situation, but he was in public school and he was getting money from the state to pay for a tutor. However, I couldn't take him on as a new client, despite the fact that I have an engineering degree with a minor in math and have a track record of my kids getting 5's on the BC exam: the state agency didn't deem me qualified because I didn't have a teaching degree. The teaching degree requirement is another reason that private schools in my area are academically superior to the public schools: the middle and high school teachers in the private schools I am familiar with don't have teaching degrees. These private schools can legally hire engineers and math majors to teach in their schools. It is scary to read that this "math problem" is not confined to my area. The educational "experts" are so focused on test results when they should be looking at the other end of the "production line." We had a saying on the manufacturing floor that you can't inspect quality into a product. The educational experts should modify the phrase to say that you can't test an education into a child. How can we expect good outcomes when our teachers haven't been trained and are therefore not qualified to do their jobs?