Sidwell College Admissions This Year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey everybody, my double D's (dear daughters) go to GDS and both have a 3.7-3.8 GPA. One got into 6 Ivy's (and Stanford) and the other one (3.7) got into only five Ivy's (not including Stanford). We might have to try the ROTC strategy next year for my DS. I will be devastated if my double D's do not get to continue their academic pursuits by each others sides. We were truly hoping for better news on colleges this admission cycle but hopefully a quick email should save this travesty.

LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a hard message to deliver and I apologize in advance. A 3.7 just isn’t all that compelling and neither is a 34 ACT relatively speaking for top 15 universities even coming from a great school like Sidwell. If your kid isn’t a NMF and/or Presidential Scholar candidate and done some substantive internships or academic research outside of school, and hit > 3.9 overall GPA having taken the Math I — Math IV sequence plus all the accelerated 1A sciences plus four years of language, plus a >1560 SAT or 35/36 ACT, you really don’t get on the radar screen of the top 15 schools. Exception is the hooked kids — namely athletes, legacies and URM, but a couple of those hooked kids have the former qualifications, too, making them spectacularly attractive applicants. These schools really know Sidwell and for example understand that a solid A from Math III is a pretty powerful academic signal. I just cannot sit by and continue to watch the Sidwell CCO get trashed the way it is by some folks on this forum. In the aggregate, they are doing a good job in a very challenging and competitive environment. The reality is, putting aside the “branding” element, the top 30 - 50 schools offer a great education. Sidwell parent of senior.

To the extent the above is at least partially true, it illustrates what has gone wrong with Sidwell over the years:

Offer a few very difficult (advanced) which are pretty harshly graded. Students who don't take these can't claim to have taken the most difficult classes. Those that do face harsh grading distributions and lower GPAs. Bad outcomes either way.

By contrast many other schools offer advanced courses that are perhaps slightly less tough than Sidwell's toughest classes, but are also graded much better (look at the course grading profiles from Westlake etc posted upthread). This allows the students at these schools to take the more advanced classes (and claim to have done so) and do well on them. Hard courses plus grade deflation favors the very very top (perhaps 5 students each grade) and hurts the top 10-25 percent of the class. If the objective is to provide the opportunity for a super high level education, that works. For better admissions outcomes it is a total fail.

--Senior Parent

Not everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

Thanks, STEM mom, good to see you again. Nothing that pp said suggests otherwise.

Huh? Answering a complaint about grading in the most rigorous math class does not make a person a stem mom. There is a reason for different levels of coursework. Not everyone is at the same place or ability in math or science or history or whatever. It is fine for there to be very challenging coursework in different diciplines and also less challenging options

Not everyone is at the same place in reading comprehension either, apparently.

Just because I think challenging courses and challenging grading is advantageous instead of disadvantageous does not mean I can't read. I just have a different opinion.

No one wrote or suggested that everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

There is a poster that would like less rigorous grading in the most challenging courses so more students can receive higher grades. I don't agree with this strategy.

Then calculate weighted GPA that is fair for every student

There is a GPA bump for taking advanced sciences and Maths.

No. All Sidwell GPA is unweighted.

Not true. When your kid is in one of these classes, they are given specifics about the weighted bump.

Very clearly you are not Sidwell parent. Or you DC get special treatment?

This isn't private information. When they send out the junior year GPA, they tell you how to calculate the "advanced' classes.

Maybe in your imagination. Same GPA as the rest of the regular courses

I am literally looking at the email with the documentation as to how to calculate the bump. Whatever.

I'm not PP but I don't have this sort of email or information and the GPA my DC received via email was not weighted at all. Pure grade in class with no bumps for the rigorous math or science classes.

Calculate it yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey everybody, my double D's (dear daughters) go to GDS and both have a 3.7-3.8 GPA. One got into 6 Ivy's (and Stanford) and the other one (3.7) got into only five Ivy's (not including Stanford). We might have to try the ROTC strategy next year for my DS. I will be devastated if my double D's do not get to continue their academic pursuits by each others sides. We were truly hoping for better news on colleges this admission cycle but hopefully a quick email should save this travesty.

There is no “ROTC strategy.” I’ve heard it can indicate that you’re full pay (since the student, IF they get the FULL ROTC scholarship, doesn’t have to pay) but that’s it.

PP sounds fake but yes, there is a much smaller pool of ROTC candidates applying to Ivy League schools. So you end up competing against, for example, 300 kids instead of 60,000. It’s not for everyone but if it interests your kid, it’s a huge boost in odds and a legit hook. Not criticizing it- it’s good for our military and our country, but you can’t deny it exists.

Is who’s going to be in ROTC even determined before EA deadlines?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a hard message to deliver and I apologize in advance. A 3.7 just isn’t all that compelling and neither is a 34 ACT relatively speaking for top 15 universities even coming from a great school like Sidwell. If your kid isn’t a NMF and/or Presidential Scholar candidate and done some substantive internships or academic research outside of school, and hit > 3.9 overall GPA having taken the Math I — Math IV sequence plus all the accelerated 1A sciences plus four years of language, plus a >1560 SAT or 35/36 ACT, you really don’t get on the radar screen of the top 15 schools. Exception is the hooked kids — namely athletes, legacies and URM, but a couple of those hooked kids have the former qualifications, too, making them spectacularly attractive applicants. These schools really know Sidwell and for example understand that a solid A from Math III is a pretty powerful academic signal. I just cannot sit by and continue to watch the Sidwell CCO get trashed the way it is by some folks on this forum. In the aggregate, they are doing a good job in a very challenging and competitive environment. The reality is, putting aside the “branding” element, the top 30 - 50 schools offer a great education. Sidwell parent of senior.

To the extent the above is at least partially true, it illustrates what has gone wrong with Sidwell over the years:

Offer a few very difficult (advanced) which are pretty harshly graded. Students who don't take these can't claim to have taken the most difficult classes. Those that do face harsh grading distributions and lower GPAs. Bad outcomes either way.

By contrast many other schools offer advanced courses that are perhaps slightly less tough than Sidwell's toughest classes, but are also graded much better (look at the course grading profiles from Westlake etc posted upthread). This allows the students at these schools to take the more advanced classes (and claim to have done so) and do well on them. Hard courses plus grade deflation favors the very very top (perhaps 5 students each grade) and hurts the top 10-25 percent of the class. If the objective is to provide the opportunity for a super high level education, that works. For better admissions outcomes it is a total fail.

--Senior Parent

Not everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

Thanks, STEM mom, good to see you again. Nothing that pp said suggests otherwise.

Huh? Answering a complaint about grading in the most rigorous math class does not make a person a stem mom. There is a reason for different levels of coursework. Not everyone is at the same place or ability in math or science or history or whatever. It is fine for there to be very challenging coursework in different diciplines and also less challenging options

Not everyone is at the same place in reading comprehension either, apparently.

Just because I think challenging courses and challenging grading is advantageous instead of disadvantageous does not mean I can't read. I just have a different opinion.

No one wrote or suggested that everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

There is a poster that would like less rigorous grading in the most challenging courses so more students can receive higher grades. I don't agree with this strategy.

Then calculate weighted GPA that is fair for every student

There is a GPA bump for taking advanced sciences and Maths.

No. All Sidwell GPA is unweighted.

Not true. When your kid is in one of these classes, they are given specifics about the weighted bump.

Very clearly you are not Sidwell parent. Or you DC get special treatment?

This isn't private information. When they send out the junior year GPA, they tell you how to calculate the "advanced' classes.

Maybe in your imagination. Same GPA as the rest of the regular courses

I am literally looking at the email with the documentation as to how to calculate the bump. Whatever.

I'm not PP but I don't have this sort of email or information and the GPA my DC received via email was not weighted at all. Pure grade in class with no bumps for the rigorous math or science classes.

The person who claims the GPA bump is trolling. My DC took both advance math and science courses, and never received this kind of emails.

I guess since they don’t share what they send to colleges as part of the profile, we will never know if they send a chart like this along with transcripts to colleges! Known unknowns or is it unknown knowns?! Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey everybody, my double D's (dear daughters) go to GDS and both have a 3.7-3.8 GPA. One got into 6 Ivy's (and Stanford) and the other one (3.7) got into only five Ivy's (not including Stanford). We might have to try the ROTC strategy next year for my DS. I will be devastated if my double D's do not get to continue their academic pursuits by each others sides. We were truly hoping for better news on colleges this admission cycle but hopefully a quick email should save this travesty.

There is no “ROTC strategy.” I’ve heard it can indicate that you’re full pay (since the student, IF they get the FULL ROTC scholarship, doesn’t have to pay) but that’s it.

PP sounds fake but yes, there is a much smaller pool of ROTC candidates applying to Ivy League schools. So you end up competing against, for example, 300 kids instead of 60,000. It’s not for everyone but if it interests your kid, it’s a huge boost in odds and a legit hook. Not criticizing it- it’s good for our military and our country, but you can’t deny it exists.

Is who’s going to be in ROTC even determined before EA deadlines?

yes ROTC is done in spring of junior year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a hard message to deliver and I apologize in advance. A 3.7 just isn’t all that compelling and neither is a 34 ACT relatively speaking for top 15 universities even coming from a great school like Sidwell. If your kid isn’t a NMF and/or Presidential Scholar candidate and done some substantive internships or academic research outside of school, and hit > 3.9 overall GPA having taken the Math I — Math IV sequence plus all the accelerated 1A sciences plus four years of language, plus a >1560 SAT or 35/36 ACT, you really don’t get on the radar screen of the top 15 schools. Exception is the hooked kids — namely athletes, legacies and URM, but a couple of those hooked kids have the former qualifications, too, making them spectacularly attractive applicants. These schools really know Sidwell and for example understand that a solid A from Math III is a pretty powerful academic signal. I just cannot sit by and continue to watch the Sidwell CCO get trashed the way it is by some folks on this forum. In the aggregate, they are doing a good job in a very challenging and competitive environment. The reality is, putting aside the “branding” element, the top 30 - 50 schools offer a great education. Sidwell parent of senior.

To the extent the above is at least partially true, it illustrates what has gone wrong with Sidwell over the years:

Offer a few very difficult (advanced) which are pretty harshly graded. Students who don't take these can't claim to have taken the most difficult classes. Those that do face harsh grading distributions and lower GPAs. Bad outcomes either way.

By contrast many other schools offer advanced courses that are perhaps slightly less tough than Sidwell's toughest classes, but are also graded much better (look at the course grading profiles from Westlake etc posted upthread). This allows the students at these schools to take the more advanced classes (and claim to have done so) and do well on them. Hard courses plus grade deflation favors the very very top (perhaps 5 students each grade) and hurts the top 10-25 percent of the class. If the objective is to provide the opportunity for a super high level education, that works. For better admissions outcomes it is a total fail.

--Senior Parent

Not everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

Thanks, STEM mom, good to see you again. Nothing that pp said suggests otherwise.

Huh? Answering a complaint about grading in the most rigorous math class does not make a person a stem mom. There is a reason for different levels of coursework. Not everyone is at the same place or ability in math or science or history or whatever. It is fine for there to be very challenging coursework in different diciplines and also less challenging options

Not everyone is at the same place in reading comprehension either, apparently.

Just because I think challenging courses and challenging grading is advantageous instead of disadvantageous does not mean I can't read. I just have a different opinion.

No one wrote or suggested that everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

There is a poster that would like less rigorous grading in the most challenging courses so more students can receive higher grades. I don't agree with this strategy.

Then calculate weighted GPA that is fair for every student

There is a GPA bump for taking advanced sciences and Maths.

No. All Sidwell GPA is unweighted.

Not true. When your kid is in one of these classes, they are given specifics about the weighted bump.

Very clearly you are not Sidwell parent. Or you DC get special treatment?

This isn't private information. When they send out the junior year GPA, they tell you how to calculate the "advanced' classes.

Maybe in your imagination. Same GPA as the rest of the regular courses

I am literally looking at the email with the documentation as to how to calculate the bump. Whatever.

I'm not PP but I don't have this sort of email or information and the GPA my DC received via email was not weighted at all. Pure grade in class with no bumps for the rigorous math or science classes.

It was an attachment to that email that you and your kid received last spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a hard message to deliver and I apologize in advance. A 3.7 just isn’t all that compelling and neither is a 34 ACT relatively speaking for top 15 universities even coming from a great school like Sidwell. If your kid isn’t a NMF and/or Presidential Scholar candidate and done some substantive internships or academic research outside of school, and hit > 3.9 overall GPA having taken the Math I — Math IV sequence plus all the accelerated 1A sciences plus four years of language, plus a >1560 SAT or 35/36 ACT, you really don’t get on the radar screen of the top 15 schools. Exception is the hooked kids — namely athletes, legacies and URM, but a couple of those hooked kids have the former qualifications, too, making them spectacularly attractive applicants. These schools really know Sidwell and for example understand that a solid A from Math III is a pretty powerful academic signal. I just cannot sit by and continue to watch the Sidwell CCO get trashed the way it is by some folks on this forum. In the aggregate, they are doing a good job in a very challenging and competitive environment. The reality is, putting aside the “branding” element, the top 30 - 50 schools offer a great education. Sidwell parent of senior.

To the extent the above is at least partially true, it illustrates what has gone wrong with Sidwell over the years:

Offer a few very difficult (advanced) which are pretty harshly graded. Students who don't take these can't claim to have taken the most difficult classes. Those that do face harsh grading distributions and lower GPAs. Bad outcomes either way.

By contrast many other schools offer advanced courses that are perhaps slightly less tough than Sidwell's toughest classes, but are also graded much better (look at the course grading profiles from Westlake etc posted upthread). This allows the students at these schools to take the more advanced classes (and claim to have done so) and do well on them. Hard courses plus grade deflation favors the very very top (perhaps 5 students each grade) and hurts the top 10-25 percent of the class. If the objective is to provide the opportunity for a super high level education, that works. For better admissions outcomes it is a total fail.

--Senior Parent

Not everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

Thanks, STEM mom, good to see you again. Nothing that pp said suggests otherwise.

Huh? Answering a complaint about grading in the most rigorous math class does not make a person a stem mom. There is a reason for different levels of coursework. Not everyone is at the same place or ability in math or science or history or whatever. It is fine for there to be very challenging coursework in different diciplines and also less challenging options

Not everyone is at the same place in reading comprehension either, apparently.

Just because I think challenging courses and challenging grading is advantageous instead of disadvantageous does not mean I can't read. I just have a different opinion.

No one wrote or suggested that everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

There is a poster that would like less rigorous grading in the most challenging courses so more students can receive higher grades. I don't agree with this strategy.

Then calculate weighted GPA that is fair for every student

There is a GPA bump for taking advanced sciences and Maths.

No. All Sidwell GPA is unweighted.

Not true. When your kid is in one of these classes, they are given specifics about the weighted bump.

Very clearly you are not Sidwell parent. Or you DC get special treatment?

This isn't private information. When they send out the junior year GPA, they tell you how to calculate the "advanced' classes.

Maybe in your imagination. Same GPA as the rest of the regular courses

I am literally looking at the email with the documentation as to how to calculate the bump. Whatever.

I'm not PP but I don't have this sort of email or information and the GPA my DC received via email was not weighted at all. Pure grade in class with no bumps for the rigorous math or science classes.

It was an attachment to that email that you and your kid received last spring.

Hilariously, the PPs are right! Along with the chart, the email said "The GPA is on an unweighted 4.0 scale. You can use the attached GPA chart along with your transcript to calculate your weighted GPA."

But in classic Sidwell fashion, none of this makes any sense and it is probably something that they have not even thought about or examined in years. The chart does not jibe at all with the US curriculum today. Specifically, the chart ascribes the highest weighting to AP classes, but the school does not offer AP classes. And yet in the school's Math curriculum, there are three levels of instruction offered to students. Which would not correlate to the chart since there are no APs and the highest math level is more advanced than a corresponding AP level class.

[Anonymous]

This is not that incredibly challenging. Use the largest weighting factor for the highest level class offered and so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a hard message to deliver and I apologize in advance. A 3.7 just isn’t all that compelling and neither is a 34 ACT relatively speaking for top 15 universities even coming from a great school like Sidwell. If your kid isn’t a NMF and/or Presidential Scholar candidate and done some substantive internships or academic research outside of school, and hit > 3.9 overall GPA having taken the Math I — Math IV sequence plus all the accelerated 1A sciences plus four years of language, plus a >1560 SAT or 35/36 ACT, you really don’t get on the radar screen of the top 15 schools. Exception is the hooked kids — namely athletes, legacies and URM, but a couple of those hooked kids have the former qualifications, too, making them spectacularly attractive applicants. These schools really know Sidwell and for example understand that a solid A from Math III is a pretty powerful academic signal. I just cannot sit by and continue to watch the Sidwell CCO get trashed the way it is by some folks on this forum. In the aggregate, they are doing a good job in a very challenging and competitive environment. The reality is, putting aside the “branding” element, the top 30 - 50 schools offer a great education. Sidwell parent of senior.

To the extent the above is at least partially true, it illustrates what has gone wrong with Sidwell over the years:

Offer a few very difficult (advanced) which are pretty harshly graded. Students who don't take these can't claim to have taken the most difficult classes. Those that do face harsh grading distributions and lower GPAs. Bad outcomes either way.

By contrast many other schools offer advanced courses that are perhaps slightly less tough than Sidwell's toughest classes, but are also graded much better (look at the course grading profiles from Westlake etc posted upthread). This allows the students at these schools to take the more advanced classes (and claim to have done so) and do well on them. Hard courses plus grade deflation favors the very very top (perhaps 5 students each grade) and hurts the top 10-25 percent of the class. If the objective is to provide the opportunity for a super high level education, that works. For better admissions outcomes it is a total fail.

--Senior Parent

Not everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

Thanks, STEM mom, good to see you again. Nothing that pp said suggests otherwise.

Huh? Answering a complaint about grading in the most rigorous math class does not make a person a stem mom. There is a reason for different levels of coursework. Not everyone is at the same place or ability in math or science or history or whatever. It is fine for there to be very challenging coursework in different diciplines and also less challenging options

Not everyone is at the same place in reading comprehension either, apparently.

Just because I think challenging courses and challenging grading is advantageous instead of disadvantageous does not mean I can't read. I just have a different opinion.

No one wrote or suggested that everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

There is a poster that would like less rigorous grading in the most challenging courses so more students can receive higher grades. I don't agree with this strategy.

Then calculate weighted GPA that is fair for every student

There is a GPA bump for taking advanced sciences and Maths.

No. All Sidwell GPA is unweighted.

Not true. When your kid is in one of these classes, they are given specifics about the weighted bump.

Very clearly you are not Sidwell parent. Or you DC get special treatment?

This isn't private information. When they send out the junior year GPA, they tell you how to calculate the "advanced' classes.

Maybe in your imagination. Same GPA as the rest of the regular courses

I am literally looking at the email with the documentation as to how to calculate the bump. Whatever.

Really? LOL.

If you are really a Sidwell parent, you should be able to access this

https://veracross-files.s3.amazonaws.com/sfs/1117/GPA%20Chart.pdf

In the transcript, no weighted GPA. This chart is just for the reference if you want to re-calculate GPA for some other purposes. But the official transcript does not calculate weighted GPA.

How old is this supposed chart, anyway? For one thing, Sidwell does not offer AP classes any more.

No clue. The person who posted the chart is obviously not a current Sidwell parent

My child graduated four years ago, and we did get that chart. There were still AP classes at that time.

[Anonymous]

All the weighting us trying to do is recognize that the higher level classes are more difficult. It is not a perfect system but if you understand that you can make an estimate of what a weighted average might look like and then move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not that incredibly challenging. Use the largest weighting factor for the highest level class offered and so on.

The point is, it is a very out of date chart. Most students are in the middle math track--should they all be using the Accel/Adv weighting for each year of math? Also, can you tell me what levels of language instruction qualify for "the highest level class offered?" Sidwell has a level of language instruction that correlates to AP, and then some languages go on after that. So does the AP level class get the Accel/Adv weighting? Or the AP weighting? If it gets Accel/Adv, which levels get AP weighting?

[Anonymous]

Treat the classes that are "AP" level and above as the highest weight. That would probably give a rough estimate comparable to other schools that weight averages.

But I would not obsess about that. Elite colleges will be aware of the elite private schools sending applicants and will be familiar with what an accomplished student from that parricular school looks like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand what’s so special about Sidwell students … academically, intellectually, creativity wise, cultural. Can someone elaborate I’d Sidwell uniqueness or distinction compared to other schools in DC or other States?

I am a former SFS parent who loved the school and thought it was worth the investment. It is an excellent school. Nevertheless, there is nothing 'unique" about SFS students. There are great kids in all sorts of schools around the country. I would say that SFS students are amazingly prepared for college, especially in terms of writing and critical thinking. DC public schools do not spend nearly the same time on writing. My children were strong students at Sidwell but not right at the top, and they ended up at the very top range of their top 10 universities. So that is one reason SFS students might be accepted, but there are plenty of other well prepared students at other high schools too.

[Anonymous]

Once again Sidwell had a good year with college admissions.

End of thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not that incredibly challenging. Use the largest weighting factor for the highest level class offered and so on.

The point is, it is a very out of date chart. Most students are in the middle math track--should they all be using the Accel/Adv weighting for each year of math? Also, can you tell me what levels of language instruction qualify for "the highest level class offered?" Sidwell has a level of language instruction that correlates to AP, and then some languages go on after that. So does the AP level class get the Accel/Adv weighting? Or the AP weighting? If it gets Accel/Adv, which levels get AP weighting?

I think the college counseling office can tell you which classes get which weights. I seem to recall the middle track math classes got some sort of bump.