"Not a Meritocracy"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And questioning the contribution of student athletes to the quality of our higher education is legitimate. You think athletics is important to higher education and others do not. Not giving so many sports to tennis players means more spots available to students with higher level academic interests.

You set up a false dichotomy here. The tennis player might be a student with high academic interests.

My DS was a recruited athlete - and NMF and valedictorian. Three of the six recruits in his class are now in med school (and if you know anything about med school admissions, you recognize that’s a huge academic achievement). Athletes can be academically ambitious as well.

Why are NESCAC, Ivy, UAA and Patriot League sports rosters filled with white kids who went to high schools in really expensive towns, boarding schools or private high schools? Is that meritocratic? Does that bother you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last week, the Head of School for our Big3 DC private reminded parents that college admissions is "not a meritocracy." He was not glib about this but seemed to be acknowledging it. He also said that the "college admissions system is broken.'

In the senior class this year, the kids of families with considerable money, privilege, and notoriety (as in nationally-known companies and public figures as well as 'old money') are doing really well in admissions. Really well. It's eye-opening and rather disgusting, considering what I know about the relative achievements of the kids (admittedly, I don't know all). But the overall results for the school is not good -- but for these kids, it's starkly good.

Are many schools seeing similar results -- along Wisconsin Avenue?

Ugh - I think this is our school - I missed two online lunches this week due to work commitments. I'm disappointed to hear this was a narrative.

This school cares far too much for the rich and is shockingly disinterested in others. It amazed me how few of us feel that anything we'd have to say would matter to them.

Yes, it is the school of the two Zoom lunches. One of the parents who spoke up was plain-spoken about her take on the situation. Indeed, she said what so many discuss privately. Totally agree with your assessment re caring for the rich and not really interested in the thoughts of the rest of us. Indeed, if you are a high stakes donor, your views are solicited. Not the rest of us, however. In the second Zoom, the HOS even called out as "Repeat offenders" people who tuned into both Zooms. I wonder if he understands that many of us experience the school as a black box, hence, double dip on Zooms just to know what's going on.

Boy do I hope this was not said in a negative way! You are 100% right. If I could have listened in on both, I would have. Where else does he think we are getting information? If they were more transparent, parents wouldn't need to come find it on DCUM.

Repeat Offenders? What an arrogant and appalling lack of respect for parents. No parent should be publicly shamed for attending both zooms, asking questions or demanding transparency. What does the board say?

[Anonymous]

Despite all these shenanigans, parents are still going head over heels to get their kids into Harvard, Stanford, Duke, etc. We're directly perpetuating the frenzy; like they say, you aren't stuck in traffic, you are traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports recruiting to college is what it is. It is an entrenched industry and hook. It makes no logical sense but such is life. You need to understand this game and play it the best you can.

It makes a lot of sense, just look at the rating Thursday

That's "the game" PP is talking about. Just because success in athletics impacts public perception of colleges does not make this connection logical. If a school makes the tournament this year and gets a boost in applications next year as a result, would you say that's "logical". Or is it maybe weird that a school of higher education would gain popularity from an event that has literally nothing to do with education?

+1 how does a sports team winning some game make the academics of that college great?

How does having better student attending male academics great?

Is this a joke? Being in class and learning with people who are bright, curious will always make learning easier and also raise the overall level of academic performance. I've been in classes with disengaged, incurious people who don't do the reading and don't try and... those classes suck.

Nothing against student athletes but athletics absolutely do not improve the quality of education at a college. They might have social benefits but they don't have academic ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last week, the Head of School for our Big3 DC private reminded parents that college admissions is "not a meritocracy." He was not glib about this but seemed to be acknowledging it. He also said that the "college admissions system is broken.'

In the senior class this year, the kids of families with considerable money, privilege, and notoriety (as in nationally-known companies and public figures as well as 'old money') are doing really well in admissions. Really well. It's eye-opening and rather disgusting, considering what I know about the relative achievements of the kids (admittedly, I don't know all). But the overall results for the school is not good -- but for these kids, it's starkly good.

Are many schools seeing similar results -- along Wisconsin Avenue?

Ugh - I think this is our school - I missed two online lunches this week due to work commitments. I'm disappointed to hear this was a narrative.

This school cares far too much for the rich and is shockingly disinterested in others. It amazed me how few of us feel that anything we'd have to say would matter to them.

Yes, it is the school of the two Zoom lunches. One of the parents who spoke up was plain-spoken about her take on the situation. Indeed, she said what so many discuss privately. Totally agree with your assessment re caring for the rich and not really interested in the thoughts of the rest of us. Indeed, if you are a high stakes donor, your views are solicited. Not the rest of us, however. In the second Zoom, the HOS even called out as "Repeat offenders" people who tuned into both Zooms. I wonder if he understands that many of us experience the school as a black box, hence, double dip on Zooms just to know what's going on.

Boy do I hope this was not said in a negative way! You are 100% right. If I could have listened in on both, I would have. Where else does he think we are getting information? If they were more transparent, parents wouldn't need to come find it on DCUM.

Repeat Offenders? What an arrogant and appalling lack of respect for parents. No parent should be publicly shamed for attending both zooms, asking questions or demanding transparency. What does the board say?

100 percent. I was one of said "Repeat Offenders." Sadly, I do not think that the Board would care. HOS would probably say that he was joking, which he was. But at the time, it felt wrong.

[Anonymous]

“College athlete” is a broad term. For D2, many of the schools are weak academically & athletically, with small teams and student bodies. MANY D3 colleges which are generally small liberal arts colleges, openly use sports as a way to keep their doors open nowadays. Their selling point for kids is the opportunity to keep playing for another four years, athletic or academic ability be damned. They use “sports recruiting” as a way to bring in warm bodies so the school can have enough students to keep its doors open. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to NESCAC schools, but absolutely applies to one’s below T40 ish in the LAC rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last week, the Head of School for our Big3 DC private reminded parents that college admissions is "not a meritocracy." He was not glib about this but seemed to be acknowledging it. He also said that the "college admissions system is broken.'

In the senior class this year, the kids of families with considerable money, privelege, and notoriety (as in nationally-known companies and public figures as well as 'old money') are doing really well in admissions. Really well. It's eye-opening and rather disgusting, considering what I know about the relative achievements of the kids (admittedly, I don't know all). But the overall results for the school is not good -- but for these kids, it's starkly good.

Are many schools seeing similar results -- along Wisconsin Avenue?

Why would it be disgusting or surprising? You think big 3 DC high school is different vs a top colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last week, the Head of School for our Big3 DC private reminded parents that college admissions is "not a meritocracy." He was not glib about this but seemed to be acknowledging it. He also said that the "college admissions system is broken.'

In the senior class this year, the kids of families with considerable money, privilege, and notoriety (as in nationally-known companies and public figures as well as 'old money') are doing really well in admissions. Really well. It's eye-opening and rather disgusting, considering what I know about the relative achievements of the kids (admittedly, I don't know all). But the overall results for the school is not good -- but for these kids, it's starkly good.

Are many schools seeing similar results -- along Wisconsin Avenue?

Ugh - I think this is our school - I missed two online lunches this week due to work commitments. I'm disappointed to hear this was a narrative.

This school cares far too much for the rich and is shockingly disinterested in others. It amazed me how few of us feel that anything we'd have to say would matter to them.

Yes, it is the school of the two Zoom lunches. One of the parents who spoke up was plain-spoken about her take on the situation. Indeed, she said what so many discuss privately. Totally agree with your assessment re caring for the rich and not really interested in the thoughts of the rest of us. Indeed, if you are a high stakes donor, your views are solicited. Not the rest of us, however. In the second Zoom, the HOS even called out as "Repeat offenders" people who tuned into both Zooms. I wonder if he understands that many of us experience the school as a black box, hence, double dip on Zooms just to know what's going on.

Boy do I hope this was not said in a negative way! You are 100% right. If I could have listened in on both, I would have. Where else does he think we are getting information? If they were more transparent, parents wouldn't need to come find it on DCUM.

Repeat Offenders? What an arrogant and appalling lack of respect for parents. No parent should be publicly shamed for attending both zooms, asking questions or demanding transparency. What does the board say?

100 percent. I was one of said "Repeat Offenders." Sadly, I do not think that the Board would care. HOS would probably say that he was joking, which he was. But at the time, it felt wrong.

You realize this might make you identifiable? We know this is about GDS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we had a pure meritocracy wouldn’t private schools be outlawed, like in Finland?

Damn, Trump was right. We should let in more Finns so we can make American higher education more of a meritocracy than oligarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports recruiting to college is what it is. It is an entrenched industry and hook. It makes no logical sense but such is life. You need to understand this game and play it the best you can.

It makes a lot of sense, just look at the rating Thursday

That's "the game" PP is talking about. Just because success in athletics impacts public perception of colleges does not make this connection logical. If a school makes the tournament this year and gets a boost in applications next year as a result, would you say that's "logical". Or is it maybe weird that a school of higher education would gain popularity from an event that has literally nothing to do with education?

+1 how does a sports team winning some game make the academics of that college great?

How does having better student attending male academics great?

? wut.

What is "male academics"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“College athlete” is a broad term. For D2, many of the schools are weak academically & athletically, with small teams and student bodies. MANY D3 colleges which are generally small liberal arts colleges, openly use sports as a way to keep their doors open nowadays. Their selling point for kids is the opportunity to keep playing for another four years, athletic or academic ability be damned. They use “sports recruiting” as a way to bring in warm bodies so the school can have enough students to keep its doors open. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to NESCAC schools, but absolutely applies to one’s below T40 ish in the LAC rankings.

Who cares? Athletes make up under 10% of all college students. The only people complaining are the ones in the bottom 10% of the class. If they did away with all the college athletes you are still not getting in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“College athlete” is a broad term. For D2, many of the schools are weak academically & athletically, with small teams and student bodies. MANY D3 colleges which are generally small liberal arts colleges, openly use sports as a way to keep their doors open nowadays. Their selling point for kids is the opportunity to keep playing for another four years, athletic or academic ability be damned. They use “sports recruiting” as a way to bring in warm bodies so the school can have enough students to keep its doors open. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to NESCAC schools, but absolutely applies to one’s below T40 ish in the LAC rankings.

Who cares? Athletes make up under 10% of all college students. The only people complaining are the ones in the bottom 10% of the class. If they did away with all the college athletes you are still not getting in.

32% at Amherst, with nearly all of them being rich white kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last week, the Head of School for our Big3 DC private reminded parents that college admissions is "not a meritocracy." He was not glib about this but seemed to be acknowledging it. He also said that the "college admissions system is broken.'

In the senior class this year, the kids of families with considerable money, privilege, and notoriety (as in nationally-known companies and public figures as well as 'old money') are doing really well in admissions. Really well. It's eye-opening and rather disgusting, considering what I know about the relative achievements of the kids (admittedly, I don't know all). But the overall results for the school is not good -- but for these kids, it's starkly good.

Are many schools seeing similar results -- along Wisconsin Avenue?

Ugh - I think this is our school - I missed two online lunches this week due to work commitments. I'm disappointed to hear this was a narrative.

This school cares far too much for the rich and is shockingly disinterested in others. It amazed me how few of us feel that anything we'd have to say would matter to them.

Yes, it is the school of the two Zoom lunches. One of the parents who spoke up was plain-spoken about her take on the situation. Indeed, she said what so many discuss privately. Totally agree with your assessment re caring for the rich and not really interested in the thoughts of the rest of us. Indeed, if you are a high stakes donor, your views are solicited. Not the rest of us, however. In the second Zoom, the HOS even called out as "Repeat offenders" people who tuned into both Zooms. I wonder if he understands that many of us experience the school as a black box, hence, double dip on Zooms just to know what's going on.

Boy do I hope this was not said in a negative way! You are 100% right. If I could have listened in on both, I would have. Where else does he think we are getting information? If they were more transparent, parents wouldn't need to come find it on DCUM.

Repeat Offenders? What an arrogant and appalling lack of respect for parents. No parent should be publicly shamed for attending both zooms, asking questions or demanding transparency. What does the board say?

100 percent. I was one of said "Repeat Offenders." Sadly, I do not think that the Board would care. HOS would probably say that he was joking, which he was. But at the time, it felt wrong.

You realize this might make you identifiable? We know this is about GDS.

No GDS is not a big 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top privates have always been about buying access and finding ways to make kids who were no more qualified than hundreds, if not thousands, of area public school kids look better on paper. Forgive me if I can’t work up a ton of sympathy for your belated recognition that others play the game better than you do.

Curious how they do this?

Go watch Varsity Blues. Officials at schools like USC and Yale basically were taking bribes to let certain kids in. Made my respect for them go way lower.

Were those the schools doing that or corrupt individuals in the process like coaches?

It’s an important difference, such as if the bank is stealing your money or just the teller at a window

Price tag to get it directly from the school is much higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Despite all these shenanigans, parents are still going head over heels to get their kids into Harvard, Stanford, Duke, etc. We're directly perpetuating the frenzy; like they say, you aren't stuck in traffic, you are traffic.

It's fair to say we are perpetuating the culture too, but at least we aren't backdooring our kids in