Capitol Hill - middle school and beyond?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me that even the most meritocratic parents here have given up on the tip-top university admissions. And not just because of the odds - because the steps required to approach the throne are just too much, and our next generation of kids might as well be happy with a decent white collar job and a chance to see our grandchildren awake rather than trying to turn themselves into McKinsey/biglaw/medical-resident slaves to their jobs (which many of us have been far too willing to do, for so little goddam return, having been convinced that academic stardom and meritocratic success would make us happy and guess Fing what)

Unless I've totally misread the tenor of recent posts.

For me it's the odds. My kids are smart, but they're not smart or driven in specific pursuits enough that the effort would be worth the potential payoff. And also, maturity and experience in myself-- I hire people from state school honors programs all the time who are excellent! I've met so many great folks who are making a comfortable life for themselves and a difference in the world, from all sorts of colleges. Unless you're a super genius and can achieve high things without burning yourself out, and going to end up doing something really impressive, it's just not worth it. If I had that kind of kid I would feel differently, but my kids are only moderately gifted.

I also take very seriously teen mental health, which wasn't so much a thing when I was a kid.

+1 once you get to a certain point in life, you start to see that undergrad school name doesn't necessarily mean effective, successful, HAPPY career or life experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmm. I'm looking at the 2023 outplacement instagram for Latin, and I see Princeton, UVA, Bucknell, Boulder, GWU, Georgetown, Bryn Mawr, Richmond, Trinity, Vanderbilt, Cornell, Northeastern, Penn, USC, Middlebury, Boston College, to name a few.

It's not a large class. What more are we asking for here? And you get this all from "laid-back," well-rounded and HAPPY kids? I'll take it.

Are any of the URM or first-gen college students by chance? Because that matters. A lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the nicest things about sending kids to Latin is that Latin parents aren’t DCUM posters.

Ironic

Not really, as I don't have kids old enough to send to Latin. My neighbor told me this, and seeing this thread, I see what she means.

I think some of this is parent self-selection. BASIS has more hyperacheiving Type A parents who want their kids to be the same & are more likely to have kids capable of being the same. Latin parents tend to be a bit more laid back about academics. Latin seems like a lovely, well-run school where kids are happy, but I look at the college outcomes and cringe. Why is virtually no one getting into the kind of school my DH & I went to? BASIS seems to have many issues, but some kids are getting into such schools. Most normal, laid back parents rank Latin over BASIS given everything else... I'd love to be one of those parents. BUT... I have this decision to make very soon & I'm not sure I can be.

Because times have changed and the college landscape has changed. It's a generational thing, it's not just Latin. The kids I interview for my alma mater come from all different schools, are 1000x better than I ever was, and don't get in.

That doesn't change the fact that SOME of them come from BASIS and virtually none seem to come from Latin. I don't disagree at all that it's much harder to get into such schools these days. Absolutely true.

Nonsense. Latin had a Princeton admit this year. BASIS had zero 2023 Ivy admits. They got one into CalTech and one into Johns Hopkins though.

There is something wrong with Basis. With how hard they are pushing the kids and their big talk about rigor, they should be getting Ivy/MIT/Stanford admits, and the fact that their aren't is concerning. Something is wrong with their model, and their execution.

I have no dog in this fight, but what does this even mean? Why must something be "wrong" based on those statistics? Said differently, why is that the metric? I see similar comments on DCUM about Basis and it really seems like Basis is one of those schools people love to hate for some reason. I'm not saying it's a perfect school and some of the criticism it receives is arguably justified, but this particular complaint misses the mark. If we are going to claim something is "wrong" at schools based on poor statistics, I would expect as much ire directed at other schools with poor statistics--for example, DCI which has abysmal PARCC and IB scores. Or pick any number of charter or DPCS schools where most of the kids aren't at grade level (there are a LOT).

It's just an odd observation: the one school that openly aims for rigor get bashed repeatedly on this board for not reaching certain goals that some people claim demonstrate rigor. Instead of embracing rigor while pushing to improve areas of legit criticism, the default on here is to tout lower-performing schools and claim that kids will be more well-rounded and "Larla will simply fall in with the advanced cohort and be just fine anyway." I mean, maybe she will, sure. But it seems like a gamble if most of the kids aren't at grade level.

Again, I have no dog in this fight but it's kind of an interesting observation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the nicest things about sending kids to Latin is that Latin parents aren’t DCUM posters.

Ironic

Not really, as I don't have kids old enough to send to Latin. My neighbor told me this, and seeing this thread, I see what she means.

I think some of this is parent self-selection. BASIS has more hyperacheiving Type A parents who want their kids to be the same & are more likely to have kids capable of being the same. Latin parents tend to be a bit more laid back about academics. Latin seems like a lovely, well-run school where kids are happy, but I look at the college outcomes and cringe. Why is virtually no one getting into the kind of school my DH & I went to? BASIS seems to have many issues, but some kids are getting into such schools. Most normal, laid back parents rank Latin over BASIS given everything else... I'd love to be one of those parents. BUT... I have this decision to make very soon & I'm not sure I can be.

Because times have changed and the college landscape has changed. It's a generational thing, it's not just Latin. The kids I interview for my alma mater come from all different schools, are 1000x better than I ever was, and don't get in.

That doesn't change the fact that SOME of them come from BASIS and virtually none seem to come from Latin. I don't disagree at all that it's much harder to get into such schools these days. Absolutely true.

Nonsense. Latin had a Princeton admit this year. BASIS had zero 2023 Ivy admits. They got one into CalTech and one into Johns Hopkins though.

There is something wrong with Basis. With how hard they are pushing the kids and their big talk about rigor, they should be getting Ivy/MIT/Stanford admits, and the fact that their aren't is concerning. Something is wrong with their model, and their execution.

I have no dog in this fight, but what does this even mean? Why must something be "wrong" based on those statistics? Said differently, why is that the metric? I see similar comments on DCUM about Basis and it really seems like Basis is one of those schools people love to hate for some reason. I'm not saying it's a perfect school and some of the criticism it receives is arguably justified, but this particular complaint misses the mark. If we are going to claim something is "wrong" at schools based on poor statistics, I would expect as much ire directed at other schools with poor statistics--for example, DCI which has abysmal PARCC and IB scores. Or pick any number of charter or DPCS schools where most of the kids aren't at grade level (there are a LOT).

It's just an odd observation: the one school that openly aims for rigor get bashed repeatedly on this board for not reaching certain goals that some people claim demonstrate rigor. Instead of embracing rigor while pushing to improve areas of legit criticism, the default on here is to tout lower-performing schools and claim that kids will be more well-rounded and "Larla will simply fall in with the advanced cohort and be just fine anyway." I mean, maybe she will, sure. But it seems like a gamble if most of the kids aren't at grade level.

Again, I have no dog in this fight but it's kind of an interesting observation.

I thought the argument PPs were making is that Latin is outperforming Basis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the nicest things about sending kids to Latin is that Latin parents aren’t DCUM posters.

Ironic

Not really, as I don't have kids old enough to send to Latin. My neighbor told me this, and seeing this thread, I see what she means.

I think some of this is parent self-selection. BASIS has more hyperacheiving Type A parents who want their kids to be the same & are more likely to have kids capable of being the same. Latin parents tend to be a bit more laid back about academics. Latin seems like a lovely, well-run school where kids are happy, but I look at the college outcomes and cringe. Why is virtually no one getting into the kind of school my DH & I went to? BASIS seems to have many issues, but some kids are getting into such schools. Most normal, laid back parents rank Latin over BASIS given everything else... I'd love to be one of those parents. BUT... I have this decision to make very soon & I'm not sure I can be.

Because times have changed and the college landscape has changed. It's a generational thing, it's not just Latin. The kids I interview for my alma mater come from all different schools, are 1000x better than I ever was, and don't get in.

That doesn't change the fact that SOME of them come from BASIS and virtually none seem to come from Latin. I don't disagree at all that it's much harder to get into such schools these days. Absolutely true.

Nonsense. Latin had a Princeton admit this year. BASIS had zero 2023 Ivy admits. They got one into CalTech and one into Johns Hopkins though.

There is something wrong with Basis. With how hard they are pushing the kids and their big talk about rigor, they should be getting Ivy/MIT/Stanford admits, and the fact that their aren't is concerning. Something is wrong with their model, and their execution.

I have no dog in this fight, but what does this even mean? Why must something be "wrong" based on those statistics? Said differently, why is that the metric? I see similar comments on DCUM about Basis and it really seems like Basis is one of those schools people love to hate for some reason. I'm not saying it's a perfect school and some of the criticism it receives is arguably justified, but this particular complaint misses the mark. If we are going to claim something is "wrong" at schools based on poor statistics, I would expect as much ire directed at other schools with poor statistics--for example, DCI which has abysmal PARCC and IB scores. Or pick any number of charter or DPCS schools where most of the kids aren't at grade level (there are a LOT).

It's just an odd observation: the one school that openly aims for rigor get bashed repeatedly on this board for not reaching certain goals that some people claim demonstrate rigor. Instead of embracing rigor while pushing to improve areas of legit criticism, the default on here is to tout lower-performing schools and claim that kids will be more well-rounded and "Larla will simply fall in with the advanced cohort and be just fine anyway." I mean, maybe she will, sure. But it seems like a gamble if most of the kids aren't at grade level.

Again, I have no dog in this fight but it's kind of an interesting observation.

I thought the argument PPs were making is that Latin is outperforming Basis?

Yes, based on college placement. So therefore, according to the PP, "something must be wrong" with Basis because they push for rigor yet none of the kids went to Ivies last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the nicest things about sending kids to Latin is that Latin parents aren’t DCUM posters.

Ironic

Not really, as I don't have kids old enough to send to Latin. My neighbor told me this, and seeing this thread, I see what she means.

I think some of this is parent self-selection. BASIS has more hyperacheiving Type A parents who want their kids to be the same & are more likely to have kids capable of being the same. Latin parents tend to be a bit more laid back about academics. Latin seems like a lovely, well-run school where kids are happy, but I look at the college outcomes and cringe. Why is virtually no one getting into the kind of school my DH & I went to? BASIS seems to have many issues, but some kids are getting into such schools. Most normal, laid back parents rank Latin over BASIS given everything else... I'd love to be one of those parents. BUT... I have this decision to make very soon & I'm not sure I can be.

Because times have changed and the college landscape has changed. It's a generational thing, it's not just Latin. The kids I interview for my alma mater come from all different schools, are 1000x better than I ever was, and don't get in.

That doesn't change the fact that SOME of them come from BASIS and virtually none seem to come from Latin. I don't disagree at all that it's much harder to get into such schools these days. Absolutely true.

Nonsense. Latin had a Princeton admit this year. BASIS had zero 2023 Ivy admits. They got one into CalTech and one into Johns Hopkins though.

There is something wrong with Basis. With how hard they are pushing the kids and their big talk about rigor, they should be getting Ivy/MIT/Stanford admits, and the fact that their aren't is concerning. Something is wrong with their model, and their execution.

I have no dog in this fight, but what does this even mean? Why must something be "wrong" based on those statistics? Said differently, why is that the metric? I see similar comments on DCUM about Basis and it really seems like Basis is one of those schools people love to hate for some reason. I'm not saying it's a perfect school and some of the criticism it receives is arguably justified, but this particular complaint misses the mark. If we are going to claim something is "wrong" at schools based on poor statistics, I would expect as much ire directed at other schools with poor statistics--for example, DCI which has abysmal PARCC and IB scores. Or pick any number of charter or DPCS schools where most of the kids aren't at grade level (there are a LOT).

It's just an odd observation: the one school that openly aims for rigor get bashed repeatedly on this board for not reaching certain goals that some people claim demonstrate rigor. Instead of embracing rigor while pushing to improve areas of legit criticism, the default on here is to tout lower-performing schools and claim that kids will be more well-rounded and "Larla will simply fall in with the advanced cohort and be just fine anyway." I mean, maybe she will, sure. But it seems like a gamble if most of the kids aren't at grade level.

Again, I have no dog in this fight but it's kind of an interesting observation.

I thought the argument PPs were making is that Latin is outperforming Basis?

Yes, based on college placement. So therefore, according to the PP, "something must be wrong" with Basis because they push for rigor yet none of the kids went to Ivies last year.

I took the PP to mean that something seems to be wrong with the model because BASIS itself seems to value college placement above all else, but its system isn’t producing those results.

Perhaps related, some of the BASIS bashers on here are disgruntled BASIS families and former families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the nicest things about sending kids to Latin is that Latin parents aren’t DCUM posters.

Ironic

Not really, as I don't have kids old enough to send to Latin. My neighbor told me this, and seeing this thread, I see what she means.

I think some of this is parent self-selection. BASIS has more hyperacheiving Type A parents who want their kids to be the same & are more likely to have kids capable of being the same. Latin parents tend to be a bit more laid back about academics. Latin seems like a lovely, well-run school where kids are happy, but I look at the college outcomes and cringe. Why is virtually no one getting into the kind of school my DH & I went to? BASIS seems to have many issues, but some kids are getting into such schools. Most normal, laid back parents rank Latin over BASIS given everything else... I'd love to be one of those parents. BUT... I have this decision to make very soon & I'm not sure I can be.

Because times have changed and the college landscape has changed. It's a generational thing, it's not just Latin. The kids I interview for my alma mater come from all different schools, are 1000x better than I ever was, and don't get in.

That doesn't change the fact that SOME of them come from BASIS and virtually none seem to come from Latin. I don't disagree at all that it's much harder to get into such schools these days. Absolutely true.

Nonsense. Latin had a Princeton admit this year. BASIS had zero 2023 Ivy admits. They got one into CalTech and one into Johns Hopkins though.

There is something wrong with Basis. With how hard they are pushing the kids and their big talk about rigor, they should be getting Ivy/MIT/Stanford admits, and the fact that their aren't is concerning. Something is wrong with their model, and their execution.

I have no dog in this fight, but what does this even mean? Why must something be "wrong" based on those statistics? Said differently, why is that the metric? I see similar comments on DCUM about Basis and it really seems like Basis is one of those schools people love to hate for some reason. I'm not saying it's a perfect school and some of the criticism it receives is arguably justified, but this particular complaint misses the mark. If we are going to claim something is "wrong" at schools based on poor statistics, I would expect as much ire directed at other schools with poor statistics--for example, DCI which has abysmal PARCC and IB scores. Or pick any number of charter or DPCS schools where most of the kids aren't at grade level (there are a LOT).

It's just an odd observation: the one school that openly aims for rigor get bashed repeatedly on this board for not reaching certain goals that some people claim demonstrate rigor. Instead of embracing rigor while pushing to improve areas of legit criticism, the default on here is to tout lower-performing schools and claim that kids will be more well-rounded and "Larla will simply fall in with the advanced cohort and be just fine anyway." I mean, maybe she will, sure. But it seems like a gamble if most of the kids aren't at grade level.

Again, I have no dog in this fight but it's kind of an interesting observation.

You can't have had a child at BASIS. Their admins preach the gospel of rigor, geared at launching seniors to the country's most highly competitive colleges, ad nauseam from the get go. Families are pushed to sacrifice to make the grade, starting with long evenings of MS HW and 7th grade algebra for all. Then, whoops, not a single senior is admitted to a solitary Ivy. Embracing rigor while improving areas of legit criticism sounds good to me. Problem is the BASIS MO is shut up, do as you're told for 8 years and Ivy Plus schools will be within reach. Our skepticism and dislike is warranted.

[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:One of the nicest things about sending kids to Latin is that Latin parents aren’t DCUM posters.

Ironic

Not really, as I don't have kids old enough to send to Latin. My neighbor told me this, and seeing this thread, I see what she means.

I think some of this is parent self-selection. BASIS has more hyperacheiving Type A parents who want their kids to be the same & are more likely to have kids capable of being the same. Latin parents tend to be a bit more laid back about academics. Latin seems like a lovely, well-run school where kids are happy, but I look at the college outcomes and cringe. Why is virtually no one getting into the kind of school my DH & I went to? BASIS seems to have many issues, but some kids are getting into such schools. Most normal, laid back parents rank Latin over BASIS given everything else... I'd love to be one of those parents. BUT... I have this decision to make very soon & I'm not sure I can be.

Because times have changed and the college landscape has changed. It's a generational thing, it's not just Latin. The kids I interview for my alma mater come from all different schools, are 1000x better than I ever was, and don't get in.

That doesn't change the fact that SOME of them come from BASIS and virtually none seem to come from Latin. I don't disagree at all that it's much harder to get into such schools these days. Absolutely true.

Nonsense. Latin had a Princeton admit this year. BASIS had zero 2023 Ivy admits. They got one into CalTech and one into Johns Hopkins though.

There is something wrong with Basis. With how hard they are pushing the kids and their big talk about rigor, they should be getting Ivy/MIT/Stanford admits, and the fact that their aren't is concerning. Something is wrong with their model, and their execution.

I have no dog in this fight, but what does this even mean? Why must something be "wrong" based on those statistics? Said differently, why is that the metric? I see similar comments on DCUM about Basis and it really seems like Basis is one of those schools people love to hate for some reason. I'm not saying it's a perfect school and some of the criticism it receives is arguably justified, but this particular complaint misses the mark. If we are going to claim something is "wrong" at schools based on poor statistics, I would expect as much ire directed at other schools with poor statistics--for example, DCI which has abysmal PARCC and IB scores. Or pick any number of charter or DPCS schools where most of the kids aren't at grade level (there are a LOT).

It's just an odd observation: the one school that openly aims for rigor get bashed repeatedly on this board for not reaching certain goals that some people claim demonstrate rigor. Instead of embracing rigor while pushing to improve areas of legit criticism, the default on here is to tout lower-performing schools and claim that kids will be more well-rounded and "Larla will simply fall in with the advanced cohort and be just fine anyway." I mean, maybe she will, sure. But it seems like a gamble if most of the kids aren't at grade level.

Again, I have no dog in this fight but it's kind of an interesting observation.

I thought the argument PPs were making is that Latin is outperforming Basis?

Yes, based on college placement. So therefore, according to the PP, "something must be wrong" with Basis because they push for rigor yet none of the kids went to Ivies last year.

I took the PP to mean that something seems to be wrong with the model because BASIS itself seems to value college placement above all else, but its system isn’t producing those results.

Perhaps related, some of the BASIS bashers on here are disgruntled BASIS families and former families.

I agree many people who bash BASIS are disgruntled families and former families. That does not reflect well on BASIS.

Some bashers are people who lotteried for BASIS, didn't get in, and are unhappy with their MS (people who are happy aren't going to hate on BASIS).

And some bashers are people who do not find the BASIS approach appealing and resent the idea that BASIS is the best option that families who want academic rigor but cannot live IB for Deal/Hardy have. This is actually a lot of families. If you live on the East side and care about education, all you hear for years is how your IB MS is bad. Then you hear who actually DCI isn't even that good academically, and the only advantage is language. Then you hear Latin is actually middling academically and a lot of kids coast. Then you hear the parochial schools aren't that good either, plus you pay for it (and limited options for girls anyway). ITS is too touchy-feely and has no HS. Montessori doesn't work at the MS level and no high school. What are you left with? BASIS. And if you look at the BASIS approach and go "that is not for us," you feel resentful. Where's the academically rigorous but HOLISTIC option. Where's the honors tracking and differentiation but with decent extra-curriculars and a good campus? You can't have that. You can have one of those other options, or BASIS.

It makes people mad. They want both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the nicest things about sending kids to Latin is that Latin parents aren’t DCUM posters.

Ironic

Not really, as I don't have kids old enough to send to Latin. My neighbor told me this, and seeing this thread, I see what she means.

I think some of this is parent self-selection. BASIS has more hyperacheiving Type A parents who want their kids to be the same & are more likely to have kids capable of being the same. Latin parents tend to be a bit more laid back about academics. Latin seems like a lovely, well-run school where kids are happy, but I look at the college outcomes and cringe. Why is virtually no one getting into the kind of school my DH & I went to? BASIS seems to have many issues, but some kids are getting into such schools. Most normal, laid back parents rank Latin over BASIS given everything else... I'd love to be one of those parents. BUT... I have this decision to make very soon & I'm not sure I can be.

Because times have changed and the college landscape has changed. It's a generational thing, it's not just Latin. The kids I interview for my alma mater come from all different schools, are 1000x better than I ever was, and don't get in.

That doesn't change the fact that SOME of them come from BASIS and virtually none seem to come from Latin. I don't disagree at all that it's much harder to get into such schools these days. Absolutely true.

Nonsense. Latin had a Princeton admit this year. BASIS had zero 2023 Ivy admits. They got one into CalTech and one into Johns Hopkins though.

There is something wrong with Basis. With how hard they are pushing the kids and their big talk about rigor, they should be getting Ivy/MIT/Stanford admits, and the fact that their aren't is concerning. Something is wrong with their model, and their execution.

I have no dog in this fight, but what does this even mean? Why must something be "wrong" based on those statistics? Said differently, why is that the metric? I see similar comments on DCUM about Basis and it really seems like Basis is one of those schools people love to hate for some reason. I'm not saying it's a perfect school and some of the criticism it receives is arguably justified, but this particular complaint misses the mark. If we are going to claim something is "wrong" at schools based on poor statistics, I would expect as much ire directed at other schools with poor statistics--for example, DCI which has abysmal PARCC and IB scores. Or pick any number of charter or DPCS schools where most of the kids aren't at grade level (there are a LOT).

It's just an odd observation: the one school that openly aims for rigor get bashed repeatedly on this board for not reaching certain goals that some people claim demonstrate rigor. Instead of embracing rigor while pushing to improve areas of legit criticism, the default on here is to tout lower-performing schools and claim that kids will be more well-rounded and "Larla will simply fall in with the advanced cohort and be just fine anyway." I mean, maybe she will, sure. But it seems like a gamble if most of the kids aren't at grade level.

Again, I have no dog in this fight but it's kind of an interesting observation.

You can't have had a child at BASIS. Their admins preach the gospel of rigor, geared at launching seniors to the country's most highly competitive colleges, ad nauseam from the get go. Families are pushed to sacrifice to make the grade, starting with long evenings of MS HW and 7th grade algebra for all. Then, whoops, not a single senior is admitted to a solitary Ivy. Embracing rigor while improving areas of legit criticism sounds good to me. Problem is the BASIS MO is shut up, do as you're told for 8 years and Ivy Plus schools will be within reach. Our skepticism and dislike is warranted.

They must have changed their approach. I went to ALL of the open houses, shadow days, etc. and heard (and am still hearing) ALL of the preaching. I'm getting all of the marketing emails. The focus isn't on "highly competitive colleges" but rather on the number of students who get merit aid in college. Is that something to preach about? I don't know, and I don't really care about that particular metric, but the school seems to. I haven't heard a single thing along the lines of "do this and you'll get into an Ivy Plus schools."

But if that's the message you received, and your kid didn't get into an Ivy Plus, I can see why you'd be upset. We'll have to agree to disagree about whether having homework in middle school is a bad thing.

[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:One of the nicest things about sending kids to Latin is that Latin parents aren’t DCUM posters.

Ironic

Not really, as I don't have kids old enough to send to Latin. My neighbor told me this, and seeing this thread, I see what she means.

I think some of this is parent self-selection. BASIS has more hyperacheiving Type A parents who want their kids to be the same & are more likely to have kids capable of being the same. Latin parents tend to be a bit more laid back about academics. Latin seems like a lovely, well-run school where kids are happy, but I look at the college outcomes and cringe. Why is virtually no one getting into the kind of school my DH & I went to? BASIS seems to have many issues, but some kids are getting into such schools. Most normal, laid back parents rank Latin over BASIS given everything else... I'd love to be one of those parents. BUT... I have this decision to make very soon & I'm not sure I can be.

Because times have changed and the college landscape has changed. It's a generational thing, it's not just Latin. The kids I interview for my alma mater come from all different schools, are 1000x better than I ever was, and don't get in.

That doesn't change the fact that SOME of them come from BASIS and virtually none seem to come from Latin. I don't disagree at all that it's much harder to get into such schools these days. Absolutely true.

Nonsense. Latin had a Princeton admit this year. BASIS had zero 2023 Ivy admits. They got one into CalTech and one into Johns Hopkins though.

There is something wrong with Basis. With how hard they are pushing the kids and their big talk about rigor, they should be getting Ivy/MIT/Stanford admits, and the fact that their aren't is concerning. Something is wrong with their model, and their execution.

I have no dog in this fight, but what does this even mean? Why must something be "wrong" based on those statistics? Said differently, why is that the metric? I see similar comments on DCUM about Basis and it really seems like Basis is one of those schools people love to hate for some reason. I'm not saying it's a perfect school and some of the criticism it receives is arguably justified, but this particular complaint misses the mark. If we are going to claim something is "wrong" at schools based on poor statistics, I would expect as much ire directed at other schools with poor statistics--for example, DCI which has abysmal PARCC and IB scores. Or pick any number of charter or DPCS schools where most of the kids aren't at grade level (there are a LOT).

It's just an odd observation: the one school that openly aims for rigor get bashed repeatedly on this board for not reaching certain goals that some people claim demonstrate rigor. Instead of embracing rigor while pushing to improve areas of legit criticism, the default on here is to tout lower-performing schools and claim that kids will be more well-rounded and "Larla will simply fall in with the advanced cohort and be just fine anyway." I mean, maybe she will, sure. But it seems like a gamble if most of the kids aren't at grade level.

Again, I have no dog in this fight but it's kind of an interesting observation.

I thought the argument PPs were making is that Latin is outperforming Basis?

Yes, based on college placement. So therefore, according to the PP, "something must be wrong" with Basis because they push for rigor yet none of the kids went to Ivies last year.

I took the PP to mean that something seems to be wrong with the model because BASIS itself seems to value college placement above all else, but its system isn’t producing those results.

Perhaps related, some of the BASIS bashers on here are disgruntled BASIS families and former families.

I agree many people who bash BASIS are disgruntled families and former families. That does not reflect well on BASIS.

Some bashers are people who lotteried for BASIS, didn't get in, and are unhappy with their MS (people who are happy aren't going to hate on BASIS).

And some bashers are people who do not find the BASIS approach appealing and resent the idea that BASIS is the best option that families who want academic rigor but cannot live IB for Deal/Hardy have. This is actually a lot of families. If you live on the East side and care about education, all you hear for years is how your IB MS is bad. Then you hear who actually DCI isn't even that good academically, and the only advantage is language. Then you hear Latin is actually middling academically and a lot of kids coast. Then you hear the parochial schools aren't that good either, plus you pay for it (and limited options for girls anyway). ITS is too touchy-feely and has no HS. Montessori doesn't work at the MS level and no high school. What are you left with? BASIS. And if you look at the BASIS approach and go "that is not for us," you feel resentful. Where's the academically rigorous but HOLISTIC option. Where's the honors tracking and differentiation but with decent extra-curriculars and a good campus? You can't have that. You can have one of those other options, or BASIS.

It makes people mad. They want both.

OR, people are genuinely happy at their MS so bash BASIS because they feel it's not all it's cracked up to be. People are irritated by others with the perception that if you're not at BASIS, you can't possibly be happy because nothing else is as good. That irks people who perceive their own school as being viewed as inferior to BASIS when they feel it is fine.

[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:One of the nicest things about sending kids to Latin is that Latin parents aren’t DCUM posters.

Ironic

Not really, as I don't have kids old enough to send to Latin. My neighbor told me this, and seeing this thread, I see what she means.

I think some of this is parent self-selection. BASIS has more hyperacheiving Type A parents who want their kids to be the same & are more likely to have kids capable of being the same. Latin parents tend to be a bit more laid back about academics. Latin seems like a lovely, well-run school where kids are happy, but I look at the college outcomes and cringe. Why is virtually no one getting into the kind of school my DH & I went to? BASIS seems to have many issues, but some kids are getting into such schools. Most normal, laid back parents rank Latin over BASIS given everything else... I'd love to be one of those parents. BUT... I have this decision to make very soon & I'm not sure I can be.

Because times have changed and the college landscape has changed. It's a generational thing, it's not just Latin. The kids I interview for my alma mater come from all different schools, are 1000x better than I ever was, and don't get in.

That doesn't change the fact that SOME of them come from BASIS and virtually none seem to come from Latin. I don't disagree at all that it's much harder to get into such schools these days. Absolutely true.

Nonsense. Latin had a Princeton admit this year. BASIS had zero 2023 Ivy admits. They got one into CalTech and one into Johns Hopkins though.

There is something wrong with Basis. With how hard they are pushing the kids and their big talk about rigor, they should be getting Ivy/MIT/Stanford admits, and the fact that their aren't is concerning. Something is wrong with their model, and their execution.

I have no dog in this fight, but what does this even mean? Why must something be "wrong" based on those statistics? Said differently, why is that the metric? I see similar comments on DCUM about Basis and it really seems like Basis is one of those schools people love to hate for some reason. I'm not saying it's a perfect school and some of the criticism it receives is arguably justified, but this particular complaint misses the mark. If we are going to claim something is "wrong" at schools based on poor statistics, I would expect as much ire directed at other schools with poor statistics--for example, DCI which has abysmal PARCC and IB scores. Or pick any number of charter or DPCS schools where most of the kids aren't at grade level (there are a LOT).

It's just an odd observation: the one school that openly aims for rigor get bashed repeatedly on this board for not reaching certain goals that some people claim demonstrate rigor. Instead of embracing rigor while pushing to improve areas of legit criticism, the default on here is to tout lower-performing schools and claim that kids will be more well-rounded and "Larla will simply fall in with the advanced cohort and be just fine anyway." I mean, maybe she will, sure. But it seems like a gamble if most of the kids aren't at grade level.

Again, I have no dog in this fight but it's kind of an interesting observation.

I thought the argument PPs were making is that Latin is outperforming Basis?

Yes, based on college placement. So therefore, according to the PP, "something must be wrong" with Basis because they push for rigor yet none of the kids went to Ivies last year.

I took the PP to mean that something seems to be wrong with the model because BASIS itself seems to value college placement above all else, but its system isn’t producing those results.

Perhaps related, some of the BASIS bashers on here are disgruntled BASIS families and former families.

I agree many people who bash BASIS are disgruntled families and former families. That does not reflect well on BASIS.

Some bashers are people who lotteried for BASIS, didn't get in, and are unhappy with their MS (people who are happy aren't going to hate on BASIS).

And some bashers are people who do not find the BASIS approach appealing and resent the idea that BASIS is the best option that families who want academic rigor but cannot live IB for Deal/Hardy have. This is actually a lot of families. If you live on the East side and care about education, all you hear for years is how your IB MS is bad. Then you hear who actually DCI isn't even that good academically, and the only advantage is language. Then you hear Latin is actually middling academically and a lot of kids coast. Then you hear the parochial schools aren't that good either, plus you pay for it (and limited options for girls anyway). ITS is too touchy-feely and has no HS. Montessori doesn't work at the MS level and no high school. What are you left with? BASIS. And if you look at the BASIS approach and go "that is not for us," you feel resentful. Where's the academically rigorous but HOLISTIC option. Where's the honors tracking and differentiation but with decent extra-curriculars and a good campus? You can't have that. You can have one of those other options, or BASIS.

It makes people mad. They want both.

If Latin is sending a bunch of people to Ivys, etc., the how is it middling? Maybe the issue is not that you can't have an academically rigorous but holistic option, but rather that you are hearing the wrong things.

[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:One of the nicest things about sending kids to Latin is that Latin parents aren’t DCUM posters.

Ironic

Not really, as I don't have kids old enough to send to Latin. My neighbor told me this, and seeing this thread, I see what she means.

I think some of this is parent self-selection. BASIS has more hyperacheiving Type A parents who want their kids to be the same & are more likely to have kids capable of being the same. Latin parents tend to be a bit more laid back about academics. Latin seems like a lovely, well-run school where kids are happy, but I look at the college outcomes and cringe. Why is virtually no one getting into the kind of school my DH & I went to? BASIS seems to have many issues, but some kids are getting into such schools. Most normal, laid back parents rank Latin over BASIS given everything else... I'd love to be one of those parents. BUT... I have this decision to make very soon & I'm not sure I can be.

Because times have changed and the college landscape has changed. It's a generational thing, it's not just Latin. The kids I interview for my alma mater come from all different schools, are 1000x better than I ever was, and don't get in.

That doesn't change the fact that SOME of them come from BASIS and virtually none seem to come from Latin. I don't disagree at all that it's much harder to get into such schools these days. Absolutely true.

Nonsense. Latin had a Princeton admit this year. BASIS had zero 2023 Ivy admits. They got one into CalTech and one into Johns Hopkins though.

There is something wrong with Basis. With how hard they are pushing the kids and their big talk about rigor, they should be getting Ivy/MIT/Stanford admits, and the fact that their aren't is concerning. Something is wrong with their model, and their execution.

I have no dog in this fight, but what does this even mean? Why must something be "wrong" based on those statistics? Said differently, why is that the metric? I see similar comments on DCUM about Basis and it really seems like Basis is one of those schools people love to hate for some reason. I'm not saying it's a perfect school and some of the criticism it receives is arguably justified, but this particular complaint misses the mark. If we are going to claim something is "wrong" at schools based on poor statistics, I would expect as much ire directed at other schools with poor statistics--for example, DCI which has abysmal PARCC and IB scores. Or pick any number of charter or DPCS schools where most of the kids aren't at grade level (there are a LOT).

It's just an odd observation: the one school that openly aims for rigor get bashed repeatedly on this board for not reaching certain goals that some people claim demonstrate rigor. Instead of embracing rigor while pushing to improve areas of legit criticism, the default on here is to tout lower-performing schools and claim that kids will be more well-rounded and "Larla will simply fall in with the advanced cohort and be just fine anyway." I mean, maybe she will, sure. But it seems like a gamble if most of the kids aren't at grade level.

Again, I have no dog in this fight but it's kind of an interesting observation.

I thought the argument PPs were making is that Latin is outperforming Basis?

Yes, based on college placement. So therefore, according to the PP, "something must be wrong" with Basis because they push for rigor yet none of the kids went to Ivies last year.

I took the PP to mean that something seems to be wrong with the model because BASIS itself seems to value college placement above all else, but its system isn’t producing those results.

Perhaps related, some of the BASIS bashers on here are disgruntled BASIS families and former families.

I agree many people who bash BASIS are disgruntled families and former families. That does not reflect well on BASIS.

Some bashers are people who lotteried for BASIS, didn't get in, and are unhappy with their MS (people who are happy aren't going to hate on BASIS).

And some bashers are people who do not find the BASIS approach appealing and resent the idea that BASIS is the best option that families who want academic rigor but cannot live IB for Deal/Hardy have. This is actually a lot of families. If you live on the East side and care about education, all you hear for years is how your IB MS is bad. Then you hear who actually DCI isn't even that good academically, and the only advantage is language. Then you hear Latin is actually middling academically and a lot of kids coast. Then you hear the parochial schools aren't that good either, plus you pay for it (and limited options for girls anyway). ITS is too touchy-feely and has no HS. Montessori doesn't work at the MS level and no high school. What are you left with? BASIS. And if you look at the BASIS approach and go "that is not for us," you feel resentful. Where's the academically rigorous but HOLISTIC option. Where's the honors tracking and differentiation but with decent extra-curriculars and a good campus? You can't have that. You can have one of those other options, or BASIS.

It makes people mad. They want both.

OR, people are genuinely happy at their MS so bash BASIS because they feel it's not all it's cracked up to be. People are irritated by others with the perception that if you're not at BASIS, you can't possibly be happy because nothing else is as good. That irks people who perceive their own school as being viewed as inferior to BASIS when they feel it is fine.

Which is silly, because if they are at a different school, how could they determine that Basis isn't all it's cracked up to be? IRL I doubt that Basis parents actually think that or that parents who are genuinely happy at their school would bother to bash another school. At the end of the day, we're all just trying to find the best fit for our child so someone else's choice shouldn't matter.

[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:One of the nicest things about sending kids to Latin is that Latin parents aren’t DCUM posters.

Ironic

Not really, as I don't have kids old enough to send to Latin. My neighbor told me this, and seeing this thread, I see what she means.

I think some of this is parent self-selection. BASIS has more hyperacheiving Type A parents who want their kids to be the same & are more likely to have kids capable of being the same. Latin parents tend to be a bit more laid back about academics. Latin seems like a lovely, well-run school where kids are happy, but I look at the college outcomes and cringe. Why is virtually no one getting into the kind of school my DH & I went to? BASIS seems to have many issues, but some kids are getting into such schools. Most normal, laid back parents rank Latin over BASIS given everything else... I'd love to be one of those parents. BUT... I have this decision to make very soon & I'm not sure I can be.

Because times have changed and the college landscape has changed. It's a generational thing, it's not just Latin. The kids I interview for my alma mater come from all different schools, are 1000x better than I ever was, and don't get in.

That doesn't change the fact that SOME of them come from BASIS and virtually none seem to come from Latin. I don't disagree at all that it's much harder to get into such schools these days. Absolutely true.

Nonsense. Latin had a Princeton admit this year. BASIS had zero 2023 Ivy admits. They got one into CalTech and one into Johns Hopkins though.

There is something wrong with Basis. With how hard they are pushing the kids and their big talk about rigor, they should be getting Ivy/MIT/Stanford admits, and the fact that their aren't is concerning. Something is wrong with their model, and their execution.

I have no dog in this fight, but what does this even mean? Why must something be "wrong" based on those statistics? Said differently, why is that the metric? I see similar comments on DCUM about Basis and it really seems like Basis is one of those schools people love to hate for some reason. I'm not saying it's a perfect school and some of the criticism it receives is arguably justified, but this particular complaint misses the mark. If we are going to claim something is "wrong" at schools based on poor statistics, I would expect as much ire directed at other schools with poor statistics--for example, DCI which has abysmal PARCC and IB scores. Or pick any number of charter or DPCS schools where most of the kids aren't at grade level (there are a LOT).

It's just an odd observation: the one school that openly aims for rigor get bashed repeatedly on this board for not reaching certain goals that some people claim demonstrate rigor. Instead of embracing rigor while pushing to improve areas of legit criticism, the default on here is to tout lower-performing schools and claim that kids will be more well-rounded and "Larla will simply fall in with the advanced cohort and be just fine anyway." I mean, maybe she will, sure. But it seems like a gamble if most of the kids aren't at grade level.

Again, I have no dog in this fight but it's kind of an interesting observation.

I thought the argument PPs were making is that Latin is outperforming Basis?

Yes, based on college placement. So therefore, according to the PP, "something must be wrong" with Basis because they push for rigor yet none of the kids went to Ivies last year.

I took the PP to mean that something seems to be wrong with the model because BASIS itself seems to value college placement above all else, but its system isn’t producing those results.

Perhaps related, some of the BASIS bashers on here are disgruntled BASIS families and former families.

I agree many people who bash BASIS are disgruntled families and former families. That does not reflect well on BASIS.

Some bashers are people who lotteried for BASIS, didn't get in, and are unhappy with their MS (people who are happy aren't going to hate on BASIS).

And some bashers are people who do not find the BASIS approach appealing and resent the idea that BASIS is the best option that families who want academic rigor but cannot live IB for Deal/Hardy have. This is actually a lot of families. If you live on the East side and care about education, all you hear for years is how your IB MS is bad. Then you hear who actually DCI isn't even that good academically, and the only advantage is language. Then you hear Latin is actually middling academically and a lot of kids coast. Then you hear the parochial schools aren't that good either, plus you pay for it (and limited options for girls anyway). ITS is too touchy-feely and has no HS. Montessori doesn't work at the MS level and no high school. What are you left with? BASIS. And if you look at the BASIS approach and go "that is not for us," you feel resentful. Where's the academically rigorous but HOLISTIC option. Where's the honors tracking and differentiation but with decent extra-curriculars and a good campus? You can't have that. You can have one of those other options, or BASIS.

It makes people mad. They want both.

If Latin is sending a bunch of people to Ivys, etc., the how is it middling? Maybe the issue is not that you can't have an academically rigorous but holistic option, but rather that you are hearing the wrong things.

There could be a number of reasons why several kids from Latin got into Ivies that have nothing to do with Latin itself.

[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:One of the nicest things about sending kids to Latin is that Latin parents aren’t DCUM posters.

Ironic

Not really, as I don't have kids old enough to send to Latin. My neighbor told me this, and seeing this thread, I see what she means.

I think some of this is parent self-selection. BASIS has more hyperacheiving Type A parents who want their kids to be the same & are more likely to have kids capable of being the same. Latin parents tend to be a bit more laid back about academics. Latin seems like a lovely, well-run school where kids are happy, but I look at the college outcomes and cringe. Why is virtually no one getting into the kind of school my DH & I went to? BASIS seems to have many issues, but some kids are getting into such schools. Most normal, laid back parents rank Latin over BASIS given everything else... I'd love to be one of those parents. BUT... I have this decision to make very soon & I'm not sure I can be.

Because times have changed and the college landscape has changed. It's a generational thing, it's not just Latin. The kids I interview for my alma mater come from all different schools, are 1000x better than I ever was, and don't get in.

That doesn't change the fact that SOME of them come from BASIS and virtually none seem to come from Latin. I don't disagree at all that it's much harder to get into such schools these days. Absolutely true.

Nonsense. Latin had a Princeton admit this year. BASIS had zero 2023 Ivy admits. They got one into CalTech and one into Johns Hopkins though.

There is something wrong with Basis. With how hard they are pushing the kids and their big talk about rigor, they should be getting Ivy/MIT/Stanford admits, and the fact that their aren't is concerning. Something is wrong with their model, and their execution.

I have no dog in this fight, but what does this even mean? Why must something be "wrong" based on those statistics? Said differently, why is that the metric? I see similar comments on DCUM about Basis and it really seems like Basis is one of those schools people love to hate for some reason. I'm not saying it's a perfect school and some of the criticism it receives is arguably justified, but this particular complaint misses the mark. If we are going to claim something is "wrong" at schools based on poor statistics, I would expect as much ire directed at other schools with poor statistics--for example, DCI which has abysmal PARCC and IB scores. Or pick any number of charter or DPCS schools where most of the kids aren't at grade level (there are a LOT).

It's just an odd observation: the one school that openly aims for rigor get bashed repeatedly on this board for not reaching certain goals that some people claim demonstrate rigor. Instead of embracing rigor while pushing to improve areas of legit criticism, the default on here is to tout lower-performing schools and claim that kids will be more well-rounded and "Larla will simply fall in with the advanced cohort and be just fine anyway." I mean, maybe she will, sure. But it seems like a gamble if most of the kids aren't at grade level.

Again, I have no dog in this fight but it's kind of an interesting observation.

I thought the argument PPs were making is that Latin is outperforming Basis?

Yes, based on college placement. So therefore, according to the PP, "something must be wrong" with Basis because they push for rigor yet none of the kids went to Ivies last year.

I took the PP to mean that something seems to be wrong with the model because BASIS itself seems to value college placement above all else, but its system isn’t producing those results.

Perhaps related, some of the BASIS bashers on here are disgruntled BASIS families and former families.

I agree many people who bash BASIS are disgruntled families and former families. That does not reflect well on BASIS.

Some bashers are people who lotteried for BASIS, didn't get in, and are unhappy with their MS (people who are happy aren't going to hate on BASIS).

And some bashers are people who do not find the BASIS approach appealing and resent the idea that BASIS is the best option that families who want academic rigor but cannot live IB for Deal/Hardy have. This is actually a lot of families. If you live on the East side and care about education, all you hear for years is how your IB MS is bad. Then you hear who actually DCI isn't even that good academically, and the only advantage is language. Then you hear Latin is actually middling academically and a lot of kids coast. Then you hear the parochial schools aren't that good either, plus you pay for it (and limited options for girls anyway). ITS is too touchy-feely and has no HS. Montessori doesn't work at the MS level and no high school. What are you left with? BASIS. And if you look at the BASIS approach and go "that is not for us," you feel resentful. Where's the academically rigorous but HOLISTIC option. Where's the honors tracking and differentiation but with decent extra-curriculars and a good campus? You can't have that. You can have one of those other options, or BASIS.

It makes people mad. They want both.

If Latin is sending a bunch of people to Ivys, etc., the how is it middling? Maybe the issue is not that you can't have an academically rigorous but holistic option, but rather that you are hearing the wrong things.

There could be a number of reasons why several kids from Latin got into Ivies that have nothing to do with Latin itself.

Or...it could be that Latin has given the kids the skills and opportunities they need to successfully earn a spot a top colleges.

[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:One of the nicest things about sending kids to Latin is that Latin parents aren’t DCUM posters.

Ironic

Not really, as I don't have kids old enough to send to Latin. My neighbor told me this, and seeing this thread, I see what she means.

I think some of this is parent self-selection. BASIS has more hyperacheiving Type A parents who want their kids to be the same & are more likely to have kids capable of being the same. Latin parents tend to be a bit more laid back about academics. Latin seems like a lovely, well-run school where kids are happy, but I look at the college outcomes and cringe. Why is virtually no one getting into the kind of school my DH & I went to? BASIS seems to have many issues, but some kids are getting into such schools. Most normal, laid back parents rank Latin over BASIS given everything else... I'd love to be one of those parents. BUT... I have this decision to make very soon & I'm not sure I can be.

Because times have changed and the college landscape has changed. It's a generational thing, it's not just Latin. The kids I interview for my alma mater come from all different schools, are 1000x better than I ever was, and don't get in.

That doesn't change the fact that SOME of them come from BASIS and virtually none seem to come from Latin. I don't disagree at all that it's much harder to get into such schools these days. Absolutely true.

Nonsense. Latin had a Princeton admit this year. BASIS had zero 2023 Ivy admits. They got one into CalTech and one into Johns Hopkins though.

There is something wrong with Basis. With how hard they are pushing the kids and their big talk about rigor, they should be getting Ivy/MIT/Stanford admits, and the fact that their aren't is concerning. Something is wrong with their model, and their execution.

I have no dog in this fight, but what does this even mean? Why must something be "wrong" based on those statistics? Said differently, why is that the metric? I see similar comments on DCUM about Basis and it really seems like Basis is one of those schools people love to hate for some reason. I'm not saying it's a perfect school and some of the criticism it receives is arguably justified, but this particular complaint misses the mark. If we are going to claim something is "wrong" at schools based on poor statistics, I would expect as much ire directed at other schools with poor statistics--for example, DCI which has abysmal PARCC and IB scores. Or pick any number of charter or DPCS schools where most of the kids aren't at grade level (there are a LOT).

It's just an odd observation: the one school that openly aims for rigor get bashed repeatedly on this board for not reaching certain goals that some people claim demonstrate rigor. Instead of embracing rigor while pushing to improve areas of legit criticism, the default on here is to tout lower-performing schools and claim that kids will be more well-rounded and "Larla will simply fall in with the advanced cohort and be just fine anyway." I mean, maybe she will, sure. But it seems like a gamble if most of the kids aren't at grade level.

Again, I have no dog in this fight but it's kind of an interesting observation.

I thought the argument PPs were making is that Latin is outperforming Basis?

Yes, based on college placement. So therefore, according to the PP, "something must be wrong" with Basis because they push for rigor yet none of the kids went to Ivies last year.

I took the PP to mean that something seems to be wrong with the model because BASIS itself seems to value college placement above all else, but its system isn’t producing those results.

Perhaps related, some of the BASIS bashers on here are disgruntled BASIS families and former families.

That's exactly what I mean, thank you. They seem to put an enormous amount of pressure on the kids with the idea that their model will lead to good college outcomes. If that isn't happening, something is wrong.