Academic strength of Sidwell and Landon

[Anonymous]

SAM2 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...The final percentage is not really a reflection of what percentage of students actually attend all top colleges in the country -- that's more what Matriculationstats was trying to examine by making judgments as to which colleges are top colleges. Instead, my analysis looks at what percentage attended certain top colleges...

This is where you're running into some problems with your methodology, and it's a shame after all this hard work. I think most people would be more interested in what percentage of students actually attend top colleges, but you're admitting that your final percentage "is not really a reflection of that." Moreover, Matriculationstats is not trying to make any judgments as to which colleges are top colleges, it is merely relying on the gold standard that everyone uses, US News & World Report. As you've admitted, you're looking at what percentage attended certain top colleges, and that comes from a "blend" where two of your three surveys are one-year snapshots from 3-6 years ago! You're far better off copying the Matriculationstats methodology, using the recent five-year matriculation data posted from the eight prominent local schools, and then draw inferences on the matriculations to these same top colleges from the 3-4 local private schools that choose not to share matriculation data. Where you can't draw inferences, you're probably better off leaving those cells blank for "insufficient data."

[SAM2]

Anonymous wrote:This is where you're running into some problems with your methodology, and it's a shame after all this hard work. I think most people would be more interested in what percentage of students actually attend top colleges, but you're admitting that your final percentage "is not really a reflection of that." Moreover, Matriculationstats is not trying to make any judgments as to which colleges are top colleges, it is merely relying on the gold standard that everyone uses, US News & World Report. As you've admitted, you're looking at what percentage attended certain top colleges, and that comes from a "blend" where two of your three surveys are one-year snapshots from 3-6 years ago! You're far better off copying the Matriculationstats methodology .... and then draw inferences on the matriculations to these same top colleges from the 3-4 local private schools that choose not to share matriculation data. Where you can't draw inferences, you're probably better off leaving those cells blank for "insufficient data."

Well, if I wanted to follow the exact same methodology at Matriculationstats, I wouldn't have wasted any time doing this work, and I'd instead just link to his analysis. I'm more from the Baskin-Robbins school of thought, where you can pick whichever flavor of analysis suits your tastes. If you're the type to credit the WSJ/Worth methodology, then you might subscribe to my analysis, because it's just an extension of the same approach that makes it more robust. Alternatively, if you want a bigger palette of colleges, but fewer high schools and fewer years of data, then you'll likely subscribe to Matriculationstats. I'd ultimately hope that people will look at both approaches and consider them as two different but informative perspectives on the same subject.

In the end, I suspect that for most people on DCUM, where you stand depends on where you sit. Those that vehemently insist on one methodology over another are likely the ones whose favorite school scores higher under one methodology than another. Like I said before though, I think someone looking at schools would be best served by thinking of each methodology as a different porthole for viewing the same target.

[Anonymous]

SAM2 wrote:
If you're the type to credit the WSJ/Worth methodology, then you might subscribe to my analysis, because it's just an extension of the same approach that makes it more robust. Alternatively, if you want a bigger palette of colleges, but few high schools and fewer years of data, then you'll likely subscribe to Matriculationstats.

My whole point is that your approach is not more robust and that Matriculationstats has more years of data and is much more current. True, Matriculationstats has only private schools, but I thought that's the whole point of this forum. I give up trying to persuade you, and presume others wouldn't persuade you to change your methodology either, because then different schools might emerge on top in your rankings. I suspect there's some sort of a bias. Having said all that, I'd still like to commend you for undertaking this exercise because I think it's useful information if interpreted properly, and it encourages others to try to interpret available (and not so easily available!) data on their own.

[SAM2]

Anonymous wrote:

SAM2 wrote:
If you're the type to credit the WSJ/Worth methodology, then you might subscribe to my analysis, because it's just an extension of the same approach that makes it more robust. Alternatively, if you want a bigger palette of colleges, but few high schools and fewer years of data, then you'll likely subscribe to Matriculationstats.

My whole point is that your approach is not more robust and that Matriculationstats has more years of data and is much more current.

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear enough. I used the exact same data as Matriculationstats. In fact, I'm the one who led him to much of his DC data. In addition, I used the WSJ/Worth data. I suppose everyone is entitled to decide for herself whether or not the addition of extra years of data to the WSJ/Worth approach leads to something more robust than the original WSJ/Worth analysis. And I'm not suggesting my approach is better or worse than Matriculationstats' approach -- they're just different.

I give up trying to persuade you, and presume others wouldn't persuade you to change your methodology either, because then different schools might emerge on top in your rankings. I suspect there's some sort of a bias.

I'm disappointed by your accusation. I've tried to make clear that I really don't care which schools come out "on top," and I don't even think any of this analysis lends itself to ranking of schools. Take a look at NCS, for example. It's numbers are varied -- high in some respects, and not-so-high in others. I'd look at this data and say NCS has very strong students academically, but I don't think I could legitimately "rank" it as the 3rd or 4th best school, or the 1st or the 10th. It's just a good school like many others in DC/MD/VA. It might be the absolute perfect school for one child, but a terrible school for another.

Maybe one reason you and I are not seeing eye-to-eye is that you're more interested in using data to rank the schools, while I'm focused on using the data as just one tool for comparing and contrasting the schools. Maybe those different viewpoints come from where we are in life. My kids are far too young to attend any of these schools, so I'm more interested in studying them to consider which schools my children might one day attend. It sounds like you might have more of a connection to some of these schools.

In any event, I'm glad you're interested. If you can find more/better data on any schools, please let me know so I can include it.

[Anonymous]

While I find matriculation *lists* interesting -- both for seeing the range of schools chosen (how far-flung, how quirky) and for seeing how bad and how good it can get -- summary stats strike me as really useless to the extent that parents want to use them to predict their own DCs' odds of admission to select colleges based on choice of private secondary schools.

Unless/until there is credible information about what % of the admissions are influenced by legacy status or recruited athletes, there's just no basis of comparison across schools. And, frankly, if your kid isn't a legacy or top athlete and goes to a private school with lots of kids who are, you've just decreased your DC's chances of admission to his/her/your college of choice. The first competition is intramural and you've placed your DC at a competitive disadvantage.

So if your primary goal in selecting a secondary school is college admissions, look for the school (which may be public) where your kid is most likely to stand out among the applicants. Not for the one where the applicant pool will be the deepest and most competitive.

Personally, I'd pick a secondary school based on the quality of the education it will provide my DC. But if you're more instrumental about these things, at least understand how they work. It's not a random drawing and these aren't odds.

[Anonymous]

Just wanted to add that I'm not the PP who has been arguing about methodology and that I don't mean to imply that the compiler of these stats endorses the use I'm describing. Just offering a caveat to those who are interested in using these kinds of stats to choose among private schools.

[Anonymous]

What can I say? They're both excellent schools and they both do well with college admissions. Sidwell would be perfect for a well mannered intelligent kid but Landon is better for the stereotypical mischievous boys boy. Sidwell graduates can be found in numerous ivy league schools while landon grads typically venture off to schools such, Ducke, UNC, and other sports schools with exceptional academics. That said. you can't go wrong with either one

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What can I say? They're both excellent schools and they both do well with college admissions. Sidwell would be perfect for a well mannered intelligent kid but Landon is better for the stereotypical mischievous boys boy. Sidwell graduates can be found in numerous ivy league schools while landon grads typically venture off to schools such, Ducke, UNC, and other sports schools with exceptional academics. That said. you can't go wrong with either one

I like your hint "well mannered" versus "mischievous". On the other hand, I would think that most intelligent boys can be well mannered when necessary and mischievous when possible. Then the question would be whether Landon enforces good manners and Sidwell allows to be mischivous.

[Anonymous]

Very different schools. Co-Ed vs. all boys, but with Holton-Arms as sister school. Sidwell allows a more privileged kid atmosphere, and the students, teachers, Trustees and parents essentially run the School. Teachers are addressed by first name by all students. Very Quaker in outlook, so read up on those philosophies. Right and wrong "might" exist, but "grey" areas dominate as basic values/ethics/principles. Learning is heavily influenced by extra tutors, special assistance to wealthiest students, and high numbers of students having "testing" on record for ADHD, so MANY get special extra time for everything. Landon still has a mythology associated with it--It is a MYTH--that it is a jock school--False. It is extremely well-rounded, requires music, arts in addition to strong academics. Amazing acting, artistry and the best band are unusually dominate in this all boys school. Extremely conscious of preparing boys to become men, with strong values, no special favors for wealthy kids--rich kids get put in their place, so if you're seeking a safe haven with special benefits for your wealth, so to St.Albans, where it is available. Landon will kick a__ and holds to strong principles, despite being secular. Great diversity, and they are proud of it. They have rigid honor code, and daily instruction slips those values in all the time. Judge independent schools partly by where graduating students go to college--and do not dismiss a school which has a % going to smaller but great schools. Often that speaks to the diversity of the school, and less wealthy students who have attended Landon or others on scholarship may not be able to afford Princeton, even if admitted. Look instead at the list of colleges the preceding graduating classes have been ADMITTED TO, not attended. The former tells the true story of learning at that school. Also judge by Alum participation in the school--the more that stay active, likely the better the school. Landon is unbelievable in the lifelong tie to the School by alums--they ARE Landon men, and they help each other forever. The school song is "Landon Forever", and it actually is true for grads.

[Anonymous]

The idea that Sidwell is full of moral relativists and privileged kids while Landon is much more diverse and principled is so full of shit.

[Anonymous]

12:56: uh, right.

[Anonymous]

Landon is NOT diverse.Drive over during the school day and take a look. The honor code itself might be rigid,
but adherence to the code is not. That is a very large problem especially in MS and HS.

Take a look at the Landon Dance thread; it's helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very different schools. Co-Ed vs. all boys, but with Holton-Arms as sister school. Sidwell allows a more privileged kid atmosphere, and the students, teachers, Trustees and parents essentially run the School. Teachers are addressed by first name by all students. Very Quaker in outlook, so read up on those philosophies. Right and wrong "might" exist, but "grey" areas dominate as basic values/ethics/principles. Learning is heavily influenced by extra tutors, special assistance to wealthiest students, and high numbers of students having "testing" on record for ADHD, so MANY get special extra time for everything. Landon still has a mythology associated with it--It is a MYTH--that it is a jock school--False. It is extremely well-rounded, requires music, arts in addition to strong academics. Amazing acting, artistry and the best band are unusually dominate in this all boys school. Extremely conscious of preparing boys to become men, with strong values, no special favors for wealthy kids--rich kids get put in their place, so if you're seeking a safe haven with special benefits for your wealth, so to St.Albans, where it is available. Landon will kick a__ and holds to strong principles, despite being secular. Great diversity, and they are proud of it. They have rigid honor code, and daily instruction slips those values in all the time. Judge independent schools partly by where graduating students go to college--and do not dismiss a school which has a % going to smaller but great schools. Often that speaks to the diversity of the school, and less wealthy students who have attended Landon or others on scholarship may not be able to afford Princeton, even if admitted. Look instead at the list of colleges the preceding graduating classes have been ADMITTED TO, not attended. The former tells the true story of learning at that school. Also judge by Alum participation in the school--the more that stay active, likely the better the school. Landon is unbelievable in the lifelong tie to the School by alums--they ARE Landon men, and they help each other forever. The school song is "Landon Forever", and it actually is true for grads.

While not every element of this thread is unbiased, I believe it largely on target. While a school like Landon does not have to apologize for any of its' academic production credentials for its' students, it is its other intangible benefits that make it such an extraordinary school. Its leadership generation focus, as opposed to more pure academic results like the so called big three, make it a superior choice for certain types of students and parents. The other school that produces similar excellence and results along these lines is Georgetown Prep.

Frankly, alot of the knocks against a school like Landon come from parents that do not have athletic or alpha boys, and they tend to look down on kids like this. To each his own, I'll take the well rounded approach like this.

[Anonymous]

No we look down on parents who pretend that another school's superior academics proves the well-roundedness (rather than comparative mediocrity of) their own school. And parents who brush aside concerns about teen alcohol consumption, cheating, and misogyny as anti-athlete (or anti-alpha male) bias.

[Anonymous]

to 21.04 I am not the PP you are racting to but find your reaction extremely snobby. Least of all, I would like DS to go to a snobby school with lots of "privileged kids" and "privileged / snobby parents" who demand extras for themselves and look down upon anyone else particularly those outside their club.

I am not implying that any particular school is like that (althoug sensed a lot of snobbiness in GDS and Potomac Admission Offices). But the kind of reactions like yours make me wonder which school you are associated with (hope not Sidwell and if so hope not many there are like yourself!).