Outplacement directors that speak in code or total silence; can anyone translate ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can see the "maximize acceptances" strategy. Perhaps I've been reading too many college admissions books these days, though, because I can also see the point that Sidwell isn't going to take too many students from a single K-6 school. That is, if 10 kids apply to Sidwell (and I think maybe 8 kids applied from our K-6 in DC's year), even if all are truly exceptional kids, it's virtually certain that Sidwell is not going to take all 10, so the OD might have the *opportunity* (note the weasel word) to help some kids out.

I agree with you that Sidwell is always going to admit many fewer students than apply, whether that's 10 or 8 or some fewer number. But I don't think that fact changes the OD's goal of trying to get as many admitted as possible.

Perhaps we may disagree on matters of degree. I can see an OD tipping off Sidwell for something besides sexual assault, for example if the family would in some less blatant way reflect really badly on the feeder school.

I'd also agree that there are possible scenarios less extreme than sexual assault that might reflect really badly (your phrase) on the feeder school. But if it's really so bad, then it likely is reflected in the record somewhere else (teacher evaluations, etc). Also, if it's really bad to that degree, then I'd imagine counseling out would be the result. And hypothetically, if the OD submarined a student's application to Sidwell for something that would badly reflect on the feeder school, then what's her alternative? To then advocate for that same student's admission to some other school? It seems like that puts the OD in just as precarious a position with regard to reflecting badly on the feeder school. In any event, this sort of really bad actor situation doesn't seem to be what we're discussing here (regardless of the particular offense). I assume you're not suggesting that something like just having a mildly PITA parent, or failure to spend more than $50 at the school auction, or not living in particular neighborhoods, is the sort of thing that would justify an OD to tank an application.

* * *

It sounds like we agree that ODs have all sorts of motivations and agendas which might influence (consciously or subconsciously) how glowing they are in describing candidates. That's just inescapable human nature. I just believe most ODs are good-hearted people who try to act in the best interests of their students, and that to the extent there is favoritism, it's more likely based on intangibles than on how much a family spent at the auction or whether the child was a "lifer" at the school. I also think any favoritism from some ODs is far outweighed by plenty of other substantive factors Sidwell will examine.

You seem to have a slightly more cynical view of the world than I do, on this topic, and you are more likely to imagine an OD and a school making a intentionally calculated decision to promote one child over another, potentially based on factors that we'd might agree are not-merit-based (donations, neighborhood, etc). That's just my impression from our exchange, so please tell me if I'm wrong about your POV.

If that is your POV though, I'm curious whether you've ever actually heard an OD doing something like that (even second-hand). I never have. I've heard people voicing suspicions, but that's all just based on (biased) inferences they make from looking at which children were admitted, and which were not. But it's that sort of situations that brings out my cynical side, because I know most parents don't know nearly as much as they think about the skills and capabilities of other people's children.

I'm signing off for the night. I look forward to reading your responses tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

... there's a difference between an agenda which may differ from the parents', and an agenda which is somehow secretive and inherently unfair, or that is favoring other children over yours.

I agree wholeheartedly with these two comments. I especially agree with the last point about how "differing agendas" doesn't mean unfair or favoring other children over yours. It's precisely the attitude of "someone's getting more favorable treatment than I am!" that I find objectionable in many of the extreme claims from page 1 of this thread.

I think "differing agendas" could actually mean "unfair," although I'm still thinking this over. Think about the examples earlier in the thread from somebody (not me) about the 4 corporate lawyers' daughters who have similar GPAs and sports. The school will promote 1 or 2 of these girls, and they will probably select which to promote based on the parents' expected contribution to the next school.

Is this fair, or not, if the girls themselves are identical? Maybe it is fair, if the ability to volunteer/donate/not be PITA is an attribute that the family as a whole brings to the next school. But then again, the ability to donate/volunteer is often linked to income and having a SAHM. Also, from the point of view of these identical girls, it's not fair.

(And please point us to where somebody posted, "somebody's getting more favorable treatment than I am!" This sort of distortion isn't helpful to the discussion.)

I am the OP and I can offer to the discussion that I don't feel that someone else is getting more favorable treatment than MY DD. I think that there may be several families who don't factor in much unless they are useful to OD. I worry that by not having a "fit" between our first choice and the OD's, we may no longer seem like a useful family for her to "feed" to the school she had in mind( perhasp also a school she would like to build a relationship with) and that , given our reaction and her ambition, she has moved on to the next good prospect. Meanwhile, we are still gathering information and DD has her heart set on another school. I guess what offends me is that parents are sold a different scenario about it all being about "fit" when really it is about OD's business contacts and the school's rep. Somewhere Waaaay down on the list it is the child. Unless as a family you hold all the cards: great package of a student, loaded family and can afford to give. I imagine then she would return my emails. Sigh... we both work, vlounteer some, donate some and have a great kid,but it isn't just about the kid. Is it?

I apologize if my comment suggested someone on this thread had literally written "someone's getting more favorable treatment than I am!" -- that's not what I meant at all. That was my description of an attitude, or maybe "fear" is a better word.

If you want examples of this attitude, your comment provides a good one about the PP who assumed that if four lawyers' daughters were applying, the OD would pick only two to promote. And here are a couple other examples from page 1 of PPs expressing fear that one child is getting promoted over another by ODs:

... if Beauvoir has 4 such candidates and one set of parents is a PITA and another set of parents are major donors with other kids potentially in the pipeline, I could certainly see them being more interested in family B getting the exmission result of their dreams than family A. And it can be rationalized as a sort of victimless crime (or even a blessing in disguise) if the decisionmaker is pretty confident that the daughter in family A will do just as well (or better) in a school that isn't her parents' first choice.

Your current school has several opportunities to talk to the schools your kid is applying to. ... they talk enthusiastically about ... what some families are going to contribute (in money and/or volunteering) to the next school "family." And maybe their faces don't light up quite as much, or at least they give less airtime, for some other kids.

[Anonymous]

A selection of jobs I would prefer to Outplacement Director at a school attended by the DCUM posters on this thread:
1. Porta-Potty cleaner
2. Tollbooth operator
3. Al Qaeda defense lawyer

[Anonymous]

4. Middle School Bus Driver or Lunchroom Monitor

[Anonymous]

How much do N/PK/K - 6th or 8th ODs have to worry about yield with the schools to which their students are applying? If Sidwell offers six spots and only two accept, at what point does that begin to reflect poorly on the OD/primary school?

[Anonymous]

Fascinating thread! FWIW - DC is applying to HS next year. I have been impressed by the time and effort across the middle school to get to know, and apparently evaluate, each kid. That said, I was not expecting to be encouraged so blatantly, and so early-on, (essentially, from day one of the school year), in one or two directions. In hindsight, I can't help but think twice about the call I received over the summer to step up as a room parent (I declined) . Maybe it is a huge conspiracy - but honestly I would not change a thing about what we have done (average effort in terms of time and money). I can't compete with big donor families, and a school that selects HS students based upon the best cupcake maker would not be the one for us anyway (although I can't help but think the ODs are a little shrewder than that.). It's one thing to read about all this stuff and quite another to experience it.

Anyway - I know the "push is there", and while I fully intend to listen to the recommendations, the final word is ours, and I'm hearing through the grapevine to take the OD with a grain of salt - it's not their way or the highway.

[Anonymous]

I'll take "Worst Threads Ever" for $400, please, Alex.

[Anonymous]

Ha OP - you can't handle the truth!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How much do N/PK/K - 6th or 8th ODs have to worry about yield with the schools to which their students are applying? If Sidwell offers six spots and only two accept, at what point does that begin to reflect poorly on the OD/primary school?

Not at all unless they were telling Sidwell that it was every family's first choice.

[Anonymous]

This is one crazy thread. I've just read through all the posts, and if these are parents in the midst of applying to schools this fall, then I think they need to relax more. Overanalyzing things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll take "Worst Threads Ever" for $400, please, Alex.

Wow, you seem incredibly defensive ... or immature ... or both immature AND defensive. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

I'm the poster that 18:16 is addressing. She asked if I have any personal experience that makes me so cynical. I do. I know two families fairly well, to the point where I know SAT scores (big difference between the kids), grades (little difference), parent "reasonableness" for lack of a better word (very little difference) and parent participation in the school in terms of money and time (big difference, the family with the low SAT kid was wealthy). I probably don't have to tell you which kid got in - the very low SATs. What surprised me was that the OD did very little for the high SAT/middle class kid. For example, the mom told me that she asked the OD to call a school on their behalf to help with the wait list (this was in May or June) and the OD told her she left a voicemail, instead of talking to a real person at the target school. I trust the mom who told me this, so I have no reason to doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the poster that 18:16 is addressing. She asked if I have any personal experience that makes me so cynical. I do. I know two families fairly well, to the point where I know SAT scores (big difference between the kids), grades (little difference), parent "reasonableness" for lack of a better word (very little difference) and parent participation in the school in terms of money and time (big difference, the family with the low SAT kid was wealthy). I probably don't have to tell you which kid got in - the very low SATs. What surprised me was that the OD did very little for the high SAT/middle class kid. For example, the mom told me that she asked the OD to call a school on their behalf to help with the wait list (this was in May or June) and the OD told her she left a voicemail, instead of talking to a real person at the target school. I trust the mom who told me this, so I have no reason to doubt it.

I am 18:16, and I appreciate your clear response to my question. You don't say it explicitly, but my understanding of your post is that you assume the OD must have advocated for the wealthy, low-SAT student, and correspondingly against the high-SAT student. Is that correct? I want to make sure I am reading you correctly. If I've misunderstood you, please feel free to redirect me. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the poster that 18:16 is addressing. She asked if I have any personal experience that makes me so cynical. I do. I know two families fairly well, to the point where I know SAT scores (big difference between the kids), grades (little difference), parent "reasonableness" for lack of a better word (very little difference) and parent participation in the school in terms of money and time (big difference, the family with the low SAT kid was wealthy). I probably don't have to tell you which kid got in - the very low SATs. What surprised me was that the OD did very little for the high SAT/middle class kid. For example, the mom told me that she asked the OD to call a school on their behalf to help with the wait list (this was in May or June) and the OD told her she left a voicemail, instead of talking to a real person at the target school. I trust the mom who told me this, so I have no reason to doubt it.

I am 18:16, and I appreciate your clear response to my question. You don't say it explicitly, but my understanding of your post is that you assume the OD must have advocated for the wealthy, low-SAT student, and correspondingly against the high-SAT student. Is that correct? I want to make sure I am reading you correctly. If I've misunderstood you, please feel free to redirect me. Thanks.

I'm 9:53 and yes, you read me correctly. Sorry if my example is a bit veiled, and I guess it was too veiled. As you can guess I'm trying to avoid identifying any persons or school, even though this was 2-3 years ago. The point about leaving a voicemail message instead of talking to a person is true, however, according to what my friend (with the high SAT but middle class income) says the OD herself told her. I realize this could just be a lousy OD. But my friend's response was "really??" and that was my response too. I wish my friend had raised a fuss, but she's not the type. Given that my friend's family and kid were reasonably popular in the school, with no obvious PITA or other issues, and given that a few other wealthier/more high profile kids from the school had already gotten into the same target school (in the initial acceptances, not during the waitlist period when this occurred), I share my friend's conclusion that their family simply wasn't worth OD's effort.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your clarification. The situation you describe is certainly one set of facts from which some parent might have suspicions that there might be some causal link between wealth and low-SAT admissions. That same situation gets discussed on DCUM all the time, when parents draw inferences about what schools want based on which preschool children get accepted (or don't). (E.g., "Johnny eats paste and can't spell his name, but still got admitted to Sidwell. I bet it's because his mother works at the World Bank!")

Just because your view is based on circumstantial speculation doesn't necessarily mean it's incorrect -- your assumption that the OD must have given it may well be an accurate conclusion about who the OD favored. But ultimately that's just speculation based on circumstantial evidence. No matter how well you know those particular families, there's no way for any of us to know how their children actually came across to the schools. There's no way for us to know how strongly the OD advocated for/against one or the other. There's no way for us to know what role the target school's AD played in the admission decisions. That's a lot of unknowns.

I was half-hoping you'd have some story where you (or someone you know) had directly talked to an OD who described her role in the process. That's the sort of direct information that might better inform all of us. If you are reading college admissions books, I'd recommend "The Gatekeepers." It has a lot of discussion about the close relationships, and even gamesmanship, between ODs and ADs. But as far as I recall, even that book did not suggest that ODs might tank a student's application. (It's been a few years since I read the book, so maybe you've seen something I forgot.)