Lottery Results - High School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Ineligible" at both SWW and Banneker, despite interviewing at both. DC is so sad.

What does that even mean?!

It means not accepted or waitlisted.

[Anonymous]

Our child wasn't interviewed at SWW, was "ineligible" at Banneker, and got horrible numbers at Latin (long shot), MacArthur, DCI, and others. The only school she got into was McKinley. Does anyone know if they do shadow days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Ineligible" at both SWW and Banneker, despite interviewing at both. DC is so sad.

This is so bogus. I don't understand why the schools didn't just waitlist all the kids who interviewed. Sends a very bad (and inappropriate/inaccurate - "you had great grades and recs so we gave you an interview but you were so bad at interview we won't even waitlist you"??? WTF!) message IMO.

Disagree. Waitlisting kids with high numbers gives false hope. Better to take your lumps and move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disappointed. Will be so curious to find out the application vs. accepted numbers. DC got rejected by #1 and waitlisted by #2 after interviews at both. We know others in similar situations. Maybe the application pool was just huge this year?

When do the applications/accented numbers for this year come out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Ineligible" at both SWW and Banneker, despite interviewing at both. DC is so sad.

What does that even mean?!

It means not accepted or waitlisted.

Right, but what’s confusing is why that kid would get an interview in the first place. Ineligible just seems like a weird way to list it, like the application was somehow incomplete—and again, why wouldn’t that be caught earlier? I realize this is just semantics but I think makes people spin out…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Ineligible" at both SWW and Banneker, despite interviewing at both. DC is so sad.

What does that even mean?!

It means not accepted or waitlisted.

Right, but what’s confusing is why that kid would get an interview in the first place. Ineligible just seems like a weird way to list it, like the application was somehow incomplete—and again, why wouldn’t that be caught earlier? I realize this is just semantics but I think makes people spin out…

+1 honestly this seem like some sort of glitch. I’d call the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Ineligible" at both SWW and Banneker, despite interviewing at both. DC is so sad.

What does that even mean?!

It means not accepted or waitlisted.

Right, but what’s confusing is why that kid would get an interview in the first place. Ineligible just seems like a weird way to list it, like the application was somehow incomplete—and again, why wouldn’t that be caught earlier? I realize this is just semantics but I think makes people spin out…

+1 honestly this seem like some sort of glitch. I’d call the school.

It's not a glitch. Its in the MSDC FAQs, clearly defined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Ineligible" at both SWW and Banneker, despite interviewing at both. DC is so sad.

What does that even mean?!

It means not accepted or waitlisted.

Right, but what’s confusing is why that kid would get an interview in the first place. Ineligible just seems like a weird way to list it, like the application was somehow incomplete—and again, why wouldn’t that be caught earlier? I realize this is just semantics but I think makes people spin out…

Don’t spin. It means you didn’t get offered a waitlist spot (same as if you didn’t get offered an interview). I believe for SWW in they used to provide everyone that made it to the interview stage a lottery number / waitlist number. Seems they don’t do that anymore.

[Anonymous]

1. SWW no interview/ineligible
2. Banneker interview/ineligible
3. McKinley interview/accepted

inbound was Dunbar. Private was not an option $$$$.

I really would like to have a more detailed explanation regarding the acceptance criteria. But this is DC, you never get answers.

[Anonymous]

I just don’t understand the process. For Walls, you have 1000+ applicants that are whittled down somehow (unclear) to 350 who get interviews for 170 (?) seats. I suppose some could be a hard no (let’s say 50) and get rejected. Do the remaining 300 get spun into a random lottery? Or do they take the 170 they want, and run a lottery for the waitlist? Why does it all have to be a mystery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand the process. For Walls, you have 1000+ applicants that are whittled down somehow (unclear) to 350 who get interviews for 170 (?) seats. I suppose some could be a hard no (let’s say 50) and get rejected. Do the remaining 300 get spun into a random lottery? Or do they take the 170 they want, and run a lottery for the waitlist? Why does it all have to be a mystery.

Wait till you discover the world of college admissions …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand the process. For Walls, you have 1000+ applicants that are whittled down somehow (unclear) to 350 who get interviews for 170 (?) seats. I suppose some could be a hard no (let’s say 50) and get rejected. Do the remaining 300 get spun into a random lottery? Or do they take the 170 they want, and run a lottery for the waitlist? Why does it all have to be a mystery.

They publish the rubric:
https://www.myschooldc.org/sites/default/files/dc/sites/myschooldc/page/attachments/SY24-25%20SWW_Admission%20Process%20Rubric_Final.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand the process. For Walls, you have 1000+ applicants that are whittled down somehow (unclear) to 350 who get interviews for 170 (?) seats. I suppose some could be a hard no (let’s say 50) and get rejected. Do the remaining 300 get spun into a random lottery? Or do they take the 170 they want, and run a lottery for the waitlist? Why does it all have to be a mystery.

At the open house, they seemed to say that each applicant was given a number of points based on the rubric (x points for interview, y for essay etc) and the “lottery” was a not a true lottery but rather a ranking representing the scores of applicants. Not sure what they did for applicants with the same scores though—you’d think there would be some! But they definitely went out of their way to say that no part of the process was an actual lottery. Not super clear beyond that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand the process. For Walls, you have 1000+ applicants that are whittled down somehow (unclear) to 350 who get interviews for 170 (?) seats. I suppose some could be a hard no (let’s say 50) and get rejected. Do the remaining 300 get spun into a random lottery? Or do they take the 170 they want, and run a lottery for the waitlist? Why does it all have to be a mystery.

The rubrics are here: https://www.myschooldc.org/how-apply/applying-high-school

It doesn't remove the entire mystery -- there's plenty that remains opaque -- but it does show how each school weights different factors and whether the final lists are ranked or lotteried. Walls ranks all its "eligible" students.

[Anonymous]

If someone calls the school, please ask and post the info. It’s not my year to play this game but I’m curious.

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand the process. For Walls, you have 1000+ applicants that are whittled down somehow (unclear) to 350 who get interviews for 170 (?) seats. I suppose some could be a hard no (let’s say 50) and get rejected. Do the remaining 300 get spun into a random lottery? Or do they take the 170 they want, and run a lottery for the waitlist? Why does it all have to be a mystery.