2024 Washington DC area College commits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sidwell parent here. UNHOOKED Sidwell kids with a 3.7 GPA are definitely not getting into a T20 this year. This is absolute fact. This is in response to a wildly over-optimistic poster several posts ago. These colleges do not have time to try to tell if Potomac or STA or BCC or whatever school is easier or harder than another, at least for some schools, they just look at the number, and 3.7 looks worse than 3.9. How could the colleges possibly have such a granular understanding of grading at different high schools anyway?

I doubt you’re a Sidwell parent, but you’re certainly clueless. Per the Cornell admissions director, colleges compare students within a high school; not across high schools. The bar for course rigor, ECs, LORs, etc are set by fellow applicants from Sidwell, not applicants from STA, GDS, Whitman, etc…

DP. The obvious conclusion here is that colleges cap admissions from any single school. They take, say (just making this up), 4-5 kids from Sidwell or NCS/STA and 0-1 kids each from School X. According to what you yourself think you heard, they'll never take 10 kids from Sidwell no matter how great they all look.

Why do you think that is? Any ideas? It's because they've decided Sidwell is somehow "better" on some metric than School X. Based on, what do you think? ...relative rigor, you got this, champ! You're being really rude AND making silly arguments based on your misunderstanding of a podcast, and that's not a good look.

Also, to the pp above, the top colleges absolutely have regional reps who understand each local high school. This is actually a job some admissions people have, because it's apparently really important to the top schools.

These regional reps make the first cut before sending applications on to other admissions committees. There are different cuts made for different reasons all through the admissions process. No, a Cornell admissions rep (and I love Cornell, half my family went there) is never going to say, hey, we favor the schools of the rich and privileged! In some sense they don't even have to say that, if they also favor legacies, full-pay, ED, and the rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, families shouldn't be sacrificing saving for college (or retirement) in favor of private school, unless the kid really does have needs that can't be met in public school.

Second, you don't know either. You specifically don't know what percent of full-pay kids at NCS/STA are full-pay now, but they're applying for FA at college. My hunch is that it's a very low percentage. You seem to think it's something like half of that 50+% figure somebody pulled out of their butt. I doubt it. For one thing, many families at these schools are really wealthy. For another thing, parents understand very well the admissions bump their kid gets by applying ED and full-pay, so they'll make it work if they can.

I'm not making any affirmative claim. It's presumptuous to say that private school families are more likely to be full pay than public school families in affluent suburbs though.

And there are plenty of posts in DCUM over the years suggesting that families make financial sacrifices to pay for private school. It's crazy that you don't see not having to pay private school tuition as making college more affordable.

Financial sacrifice = foregoing that new kitchen and that family trip to Venice. Of course some families are making this type of sacrifice, and good for them. What you refuse to talk about is the family that decides to forego college saving so they can pay Sidwell tuition, and that's a dumb mistake and probably represents very few families at the top DC privates.

How can you possibly argue that most Whitman families are on an equal financial footing with a full pay family at Sidwell? That's some bubble you live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who thinks an unhooked kid with a 3.7 is getting into a T20 college this year is nuts.

If you equate a 3.7 to a 92 at STA then that doesn’t sound unrealistic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:59 poster-half of kids at Sidwell probably have either a major hook or they are top 10-15% of class. The hooks are not always obvious.

Saying the hooks are not always obvious as evidence that everyone is hooked. What amazing logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:59 poster-half of kids at Sidwell probably have either a major hook or they are top 10-15% of class. The hooks are not always obvious.

That’s always the canned response: “All/most Sidwell kids have hooks, even if no one really knows what they are.” Mmmkay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sidwell parent here. UNHOOKED Sidwell kids with a 3.7 GPA are definitely not getting into a T20 this year. This is absolute fact. This is in response to a wildly over-optimistic poster several posts ago. These colleges do not have time to try to tell if Potomac or STA or BCC or whatever school is easier or harder than another, at least for some schools, they just look at the number, and 3.7 looks worse than 3.9. How could the colleges possibly have such a granular understanding of grading at different high schools anyway?

I doubt you’re a Sidwell parent, but you’re certainly clueless. Per the Cornell admissions director, colleges compare students within a high school; not across high schools. The bar for course rigor, ECs, LORs, etc are set by fellow applicants from Sidwell, not applicants from STA, GDS, Whitman, etc…

DP. The obvious conclusion here is that colleges cap admissions from any single school. They take, say (just making this up), 4-5 kids from Sidwell or NCS/STA and 0-1 kids each from School X. According to what you yourself think you heard, they'll never take 10 kids from Sidwell no matter how great they all look.

Why do you think that is? Any ideas? It's because they've decided Sidwell is somehow "better" on some metric than School X. Based on, what do you think? ...relative rigor, you got this, champ! You're being really rude AND making silly arguments based on your misunderstanding of a podcast, and that's not a good look.

Also, to the pp above, the top colleges absolutely have regional reps who understand each local high school. This is actually a job some admissions people have, because it's apparently really important to the top schools.

These regional reps make the first cut before sending applications on to other admissions committees. There are different cuts made for different reasons all through the admissions process. No, a Cornell admissions rep (and I love Cornell, half my family went there) is never going to say, hey, we favor the schools of the rich and privileged! In some sense they don't even have to say that, if they also favor legacies, full-pay, ED, and the rest.

🙄

[Anonymous]

As long as TO is mainly in place, the most important factor in admissions is GPA. The regional reps are often not so intimately familiar with all of these high schools to parse the differences in grading. Also, even within schools, kids have different schedules. Top colleges are getting 50-60K applications. They have to have some type of computer algorithm to quickly shit can most of these, and the most important factor in these algorithms is likely GPA at most colleges. Bottom line is you better hope your kid has at least a 3.8 and preferably a 3.9.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who thinks an unhooked kid with a 3.7 is getting into a T20 college this year is nuts.

My completely unhooked child got into a top 10 this year ED1 with about a 3.7. At Sidwell/GDS/St Albans. Not saying which one for privacy. I just don’t want parents to feel hopeless. It is absolutely not!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:59 poster-half of kids at Sidwell probably have either a major hook or they are top 10-15% of class. The hooks are not always obvious.

Saying the hooks are not always obvious as evidence that everyone is hooked. What amazing logic.

You wouldn't have guessed that my white DD was hooked. Not by legacy or something obvious like athletics. No, by an ED that was conducted outside of school in which DD got state and national recognition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who thinks an unhooked kid with a 3.7 is getting into a T20 college this year is nuts.

My completely unhooked child got into a top 10 this year ED1 with about a 3.7. At Sidwell/GDS/St Albans. Not saying which one for privacy. I just don’t want parents to feel hopeless. It is absolutely not!!

ED1 isn't a hook as such, but it's definitely a bump. And it's helped by being able to ignore FA packages because you're full pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As long as TO is mainly in place, the most important factor in admissions is GPA. The regional reps are often not so intimately familiar with all of these high schools to parse the differences in grading. Also, even within schools, kids have different schedules. Top colleges are getting 50-60K applications. They have to have some type of computer algorithm to quickly shit can most of these, and the most important factor in these algorithms is likely GPA at most colleges. Bottom line is you better hope your kid has at least a 3.8 and preferably a 3.9.

And that's where you're wrong. If DCUMers can parse the differences between schools, you can bet local admissions reps who are paid to parse these differences do, too (especially if they read DCUM ).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who thinks an unhooked kid with a 3.7 is getting into a T20 college this year is nuts.

My completely unhooked child got into a top 10 this year ED1 with about a 3.7. At Sidwell/GDS/St Albans. Not saying which one for privacy. I just don’t want parents to feel hopeless. It is absolutely not!!

ED1 isn't a hook as such, but it's definitely a bump. And it's helped by being able to ignore FA packages because you're full pay.

So, what’s your point?

[Anonymous]

Hey Jeff, can you do a feature where you do the top ten most toxic threads of the year? This one is definitely in the lead spot for 2024 thus far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey Jeff, can you do a feature where you do the top ten most toxic threads of the year? This one is definitely in the lead spot for 2024 thus far.

+1 it’s down right pathological. A bunch of creepy stalkers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey Jeff, can you do a feature where you do the top ten most toxic threads of the year? This one is definitely in the lead spot for 2024 thus far.

+1 it’s down right pathological. A bunch of creepy stalkers.

Because you don't like what you're hearing? I don't understand.