Don't understand the crazy about sidwell friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to add to the poster above. Many of Sidwell's recent admits to HYPS have parents whose accomplishments and achievements you can easily Google. Your daughter's class might have been an exception. It should come as no surprise that accomplished parents often raise ambitious, intelligent children. In the classes I know well, the better known, more famous parents always had their children admitted to the top colleges.

I suppose the real question is whether the school support your ordinary, no-connections kid, as strongly as it does for the connected kids, for college placement among the HYPS? Are the non-connected kids disadvantaged in college placement?

It does. We are truly working class and our first child (unusually intelligent) who went all the way through Sidwell on significant FA is now at an ivy league college. Our second child is thriving there. He is happy and learning a lot. Both have had amazing opportunities ( foreign travel, singing opera with a professional orchestra, talking to a supreme court justice) that he would never have had in public school.We feel accepted by the Sidwell community. We love the school. If you don't think its right for your family I can understand.

You just proved PP's point: the average MC or UMC kid is not recruited nor focused on. Only wealthy or lower income merit scholarship aid kids. Barbell approach for sure.

Not sure that is an accurate interpretation. The economic "hollowing out" that is creating a barbell in income distribution is clearly a point of pressure. The PP's question related to whether or not once at the school, is there a differential in support for the student in the college process. No real evidence for this. Students of all income levels have successfully accessed the most competitive college. In fact, it is the cohort just below the wealthy that typically do best - referred to pejoratively earlier as "strivers".

The other misconception is that all FA is going to lower income students. You would be surprised how many students in the $150 to $300 HHI range are supported by FA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to add to the poster above. Many of Sidwell's recent admits to HYPS have parents whose accomplishments and achievements you can easily Google. Your daughter's class might have been an exception. It should come as no surprise that accomplished parents often raise ambitious, intelligent children. In the classes I know well, the better known, more famous parents always had their children admitted to the top colleges.

I suppose the real question is whether the school support your ordinary, no-connections kid, as strongly as it does for the connected kids, for college placement among the HYPS? Are the non-connected kids disadvantaged in college placement?

It does. We are truly working class and our first child (unusually intelligent) who went all the way through Sidwell on significant FA is now at an ivy league college. Our second child is thriving there. He is happy and learning a lot. Both have had amazing opportunities ( foreign travel, singing opera with a professional orchestra, talking to a supreme court justice) that he would never have had in public school.We feel accepted by the Sidwell community. We love the school. If you don't think its right for your family I can understand.

You just proved PP's point: the average MC or UMC kid is not recruited nor focused on. Only wealthy or lower income merit scholarship aid kids. Barbell approach for sure.

Not sure that is an accurate interpretation. The economic "hollowing out" that is creating a barbell in income distribution is clearly a point of pressure. The PP's question related to whether or not once at the school, is there a differential in support for the student in the college process. No real evidence for this. Students of all income levels have successfully accessed the most competitive college. In fact, it is the cohort just below the wealthy that typically do best - referred to pejoratively earlier as "strivers".

The other misconception is that all FA is going to lower income students. You would be surprised how many students in the $150 to $300 HHI range are supported by FA.

As an alum who is constantly hit up for money by SFS, if they're really giving FA to people who make more than I do, you better damn well believe I'm not donating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It got popular when Chelsea went there, and then when the Obama girls went there. This city is full of a$$ kissers, and people wanted to be there just to be able to say they send their kids to school with the president's kids.

This is true. Many, many people want it for the social climbing aspect.
- Mid 90s Sidwell grad who saw the change when Chelsea came

it was popular WELL BEFORE Chelsea went there. In the 80s, it was very sought after as well, and i'm sure before that too. it's a good school.

yes, it was. But as PP said, the parent community has changed ENORMOUSLY. And not for the better.

Agree. Too many with different values and there for social cachet reasons in their powerful circles. I define the social climbers (??) differently than these socialite maintainers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was popular WELL BEFORE Chelsea went there. In the 80s, it was very sought after as well, and i'm sure before that too. it's a good school.

yes, it was. But as PP said, the parent community has changed ENORMOUSLY. And not for the better.

NP. How would you know "the parent community has changed enormously ... and not for the better"? Surely you weren't a parent there in both the 1980s and now 30 years later, were you? Sounds to me like you're making shit up.

Everyone knows this. I'm among many who have posted about it on this thread. I was a student there in the 80s and 90s and am now a parent who knows MANY people who send their kids there. Seriously, you're arguing the sky is not blue.

Before you get too nostalgic for the 80s and 90s, I remind you that, at that time, the teachers were paid below the 50th percentile as compared to peer schools, the facilities were shabby, less than 10% of students were supported by FA (versus 25% today) and the endowment was de minimis. If a strong recession had come along in the late 90s, like the one we had in 2007-2010, who knows how the school would have fared.

I also can't shake the hypocrisy of community members who conveniently forget the fact that the school had an explicit policy of only allowing one AA child per grade after Brown v. Ed and only started graduating Black children in the 70s.

Yes, the school has changed ENORMOUSLY, and for the better!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to add to the poster above. Many of Sidwell's recent admits to HYPS have parents whose accomplishments and achievements you can easily Google. Your daughter's class might have been an exception. It should come as no surprise that accomplished parents often raise ambitious, intelligent children. In the classes I know well, the better known, more famous parents always had their children admitted to the top colleges.

I suppose the real question is whether the school support your ordinary, no-connections kid, as strongly as it does for the connected kids, for college placement among the HYPS? Are the non-connected kids disadvantaged in college placement?

It does. We are truly working class and our first child (unusually intelligent) who went all the way through Sidwell on significant FA is now at an ivy league college. Our second child is thriving there. He is happy and learning a lot. Both have had amazing opportunities ( foreign travel, singing opera with a professional orchestra, talking to a supreme court justice) that he would never have had in public school.We feel accepted by the Sidwell community. We love the school. If you don't think its right for your family I can understand.

You just proved PP's point: the average MC or UMC kid is not recruited nor focused on. Only wealthy or lower income merit scholarship aid kids. Barbell approach for sure.

Not sure that is an accurate interpretation. The economic "hollowing out" that is creating a barbell in income distribution is clearly a point of pressure. The PP's question related to whether or not once at the school, is there a differential in support for the student in the college process. No real evidence for this. Students of all income levels have successfully accessed the most competitive college. In fact, it is the cohort just below the wealthy that typically do best - referred to pejoratively earlier as "strivers".

The other misconception is that all FA is going to lower income students. You would be surprised how many students in the $150 to $300 HHI range are supported by FA.

As an alum who is constantly hit up for money by SFS, if they're really giving FA to people who make more than I do, you better damn well believe I'm not donating.

This is not unique to them nor is it new. All of the schools use the same formula. Look it up: https://www.nais.org/articles/pages/calculating-the-family-contribution.aspx. People giving big dough to the schools clearly understand this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was popular WELL BEFORE Chelsea went there. In the 80s, it was very sought after as well, and i'm sure before that too. it's a good school.

yes, it was. But as PP said, the parent community has changed ENORMOUSLY. And not for the better.

NP. How would you know "the parent community has changed enormously ... and not for the better"? Surely you weren't a parent there in both the 1980s and now 30 years later, were you? Sounds to me like you're making shit up.

Everyone knows this. I'm among many who have posted about it on this thread. I was a student there in the 80s and 90s and am now a parent who knows MANY people who send their kids there. Seriously, you're arguing the sky is not blue.

Before you get too nostalgic for the 80s and 90s, I remind you that, at that time, the teachers were paid below the 50th percentile as compared to peer schools, the facilities were shabby, less than 10% of students were supported by FA (versus 25% today) and the endowment was de minimis. If a strong recession had come along in the late 90s, like the one we had in 2007-2010, who knows how the school would have fared.

I also can't shake the hypocrisy of community members who conveniently forget the fact that the school had an explicit policy of only allowing one AA child per grade after Brown v. Ed and only started graduating Black children in the 70s.

Yes, the school has changed ENORMOUSLY, and for the better!

Student body: URM UMC and URM subsidized are a couple large components of each class in addition to brilliant Academic Scholarship middle class/immigrant kids, the socialites, the faculty kids, the legacy UMC kids, and then the UMC white collar families. A normal, average intelligence UMC kid with no genius angle or athletic talent faces a tough application pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was popular WELL BEFORE Chelsea went there. In the 80s, it was very sought after as well, and i'm sure before that too. it's a good school.

yes, it was. But as PP said, the parent community has changed ENORMOUSLY. And not for the better.

NP. How would you know "the parent community has changed enormously ... and not for the better"? Surely you weren't a parent there in both the 1980s and now 30 years later, were you? Sounds to me like you're making shit up.

Everyone knows this. I'm among many who have posted about it on this thread. I was a student there in the 80s and 90s and am now a parent who knows MANY people who send their kids there. Seriously, you're arguing the sky is not blue.

Before you get too nostalgic for the 80s and 90s, I remind you that, at that time, the teachers were paid below the 50th percentile as compared to peer schools, the facilities were shabby, less than 10% of students were supported by FA (versus 25% today) and the endowment was de minimis. If a strong recession had come along in the late 90s, like the one we had in 2007-2010, who knows how the school would have fared.

I also can't shake the hypocrisy of community members who conveniently forget the fact that the school had an explicit policy of only allowing one AA child per grade after Brown v. Ed and only started graduating Black children in the 70s.

Yes, the school has changed ENORMOUSLY, and for the better!

None of these race comments are relevant. Of course in some ways the school has changed for the better. But in terms of the social climbing nature of the parent community, it's been for the worse. At LEAST 5 posters, many of whom seem to be alums, are claiming this. Not sure why you're arguing with everyone about it.

Also, if you think the school is legitimately diverse, you're crazy. My mid 90s class was WAY more diverse - economically at least - than the current graduating classes.

But keep on drinking that Kool-Aid..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to add to the poster above. Many of Sidwell's recent admits to HYPS have parents whose accomplishments and achievements you can easily Google. Your daughter's class might have been an exception. It should come as no surprise that accomplished parents often raise ambitious, intelligent children. In the classes I know well, the better known, more famous parents always had their children admitted to the top colleges.

I suppose the real question is whether the school support your ordinary, no-connections kid, as strongly as it does for the connected kids, for college placement among the HYPS? Are the non-connected kids disadvantaged in college placement?

It does. We are truly working class and our first child (unusually intelligent) who went all the way through Sidwell on significant FA is now at an ivy league college. Our second child is thriving there. He is happy and learning a lot. Both have had amazing opportunities ( foreign travel, singing opera with a professional orchestra, talking to a supreme court justice) that he would never have had in public school.We feel accepted by the Sidwell community. We love the school. If you don't think its right for your family I can understand.

You just proved PP's point: the average MC or UMC kid is not recruited nor focused on. Only wealthy or lower income merit scholarship aid kids. Barbell approach for sure.

Not sure that is an accurate interpretation. The economic "hollowing out" that is creating a barbell in income distribution is clearly a point of pressure. The PP's question related to whether or not once at the school, is there a differential in support for the student in the college process. No real evidence for this. Students of all income levels have successfully accessed the most competitive college. In fact, it is the cohort just below the wealthy that typically do best - referred to pejoratively earlier as "strivers".

The other misconception is that all FA is going to lower income students. You would be surprised how many students in the $150 to $300 HHI range are supported by FA.

As an alum who is constantly hit up for money by SFS, if they're really giving FA to people who make more than I do, you better damn well believe I'm not donating.

This is not unique to them nor is it new. All of the schools use the same formula. Look it up: https://www.nais.org/articles/pages/calculating-the-family-contribution.aspx. People giving big dough to the schools clearly understand this.

As tuition has gone up in real terms, so has FA, and the relative income that qualified has gone up. This has exacerbated problems of fairness -- fo the formulas really capture need? Meanwhile, many people will position themselves to get as much FA as they can, while others feel a once-respected moral obligation to get by without it if they can, leaving resources to the truly needy.

You can be sure if you are regular UMC and are full-pay or donate, that others less deserving are taking a chunk of your contributions as their financial aid. Sure that's a grim perspective, but it's true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was popular WELL BEFORE Chelsea went there. In the 80s, it was very sought after as well, and i'm sure before that too. it's a good school.

yes, it was. But as PP said, the parent community has changed ENORMOUSLY. And not for the better.

NP. How would you know "the parent community has changed enormously ... and not for the better"? Surely you weren't a parent there in both the 1980s and now 30 years later, were you? Sounds to me like you're making shit up.

Everyone knows this. I'm among many who have posted about it on this thread. I was a student there in the 80s and 90s and am now a parent who knows MANY people who send their kids there. Seriously, you're arguing the sky is not blue.

Before you get too nostalgic for the 80s and 90s, I remind you that, at that time, the teachers were paid below the 50th percentile as compared to peer schools, the facilities were shabby, less than 10% of students were supported by FA (versus 25% today) and the endowment was de minimis. If a strong recession had come along in the late 90s, like the one we had in 2007-2010, who knows how the school would have fared.

I also can't shake the hypocrisy of community members who conveniently forget the fact that the school had an explicit policy of only allowing one AA child per grade after Brown v. Ed and only started graduating Black children in the 70s.

Yes, the school has changed ENORMOUSLY, and for the better!

Student body: URM UMC and URM subsidized are a couple large components of each class in addition to brilliant Academic Scholarship middle class/immigrant kids, the socialites, the faculty kids, the legacy UMC kids, and then the UMC white collar families. A normal, average intelligence UMC kid with no genius angle or athletic talent faces a tough application pool.

Wrong on several fronts:

1. The majority of URM students are not on FA
2. Less than 50% of the FA budget goes to URMs
3. There are fewer faculty children at the school proportionately than there were 30 years ago
4. Average intelligence kids of any income / ethnicity have a pretty tough time keeping their noses above water at Sidwell
5. The odds of getting in for a child of any ethnic group are long
6. There are plenty of brilliant non-immigrant kids at the school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was popular WELL BEFORE Chelsea went there. In the 80s, it was very sought after as well, and i'm sure before that too. it's a good school.

yes, it was. But as PP said, the parent community has changed ENORMOUSLY. And not for the better.

NP. How would you know "the parent community has changed enormously ... and not for the better"? Surely you weren't a parent there in both the 1980s and now 30 years later, were you? Sounds to me like you're making shit up.

Everyone knows this. I'm among many who have posted about it on this thread. I was a student there in the 80s and 90s and am now a parent who knows MANY people who send their kids there. Seriously, you're arguing the sky is not blue.

Before you get too nostalgic for the 80s and 90s, I remind you that, at that time, the teachers were paid below the 50th percentile as compared to peer schools, the facilities were shabby, less than 10% of students were supported by FA (versus 25% today) and the endowment was de minimis. If a strong recession had come along in the late 90s, like the one we had in 2007-2010, who knows how the school would have fared.

I also can't shake the hypocrisy of community members who conveniently forget the fact that the school had an explicit policy of only allowing one AA child per grade after Brown v. Ed and only started graduating Black children in the 70s.

Yes, the school has changed ENORMOUSLY, and for the better!

None of these race comments are relevant. Of course in some ways the school has changed for the better. But in terms of the social climbing nature of the parent community, it's been for the worse. At LEAST 5 posters, many of whom seem to be alums, are claiming this. Not sure why you're arguing with everyone about it.

Also, if you think the school is legitimately diverse, you're crazy. My mid 90s class was WAY more diverse - economically at least - than the current graduating classes.

But keep on drinking that Kool-Aid..

No Kool-Aid, just observable facts that you seem to lack, "because 5 posters who seem to be alums say it is so, it must be true." Better / worse is an opinion. And I am here to represent that their opinion is not universally held.

Your statement about a mid 90s class beyond way more diverse is just flat wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was popular WELL BEFORE Chelsea went there. In the 80s, it was very sought after as well, and i'm sure before that too. it's a good school.

yes, it was. But as PP said, the parent community has changed ENORMOUSLY. And not for the better.

NP. How would you know "the parent community has changed enormously ... and not for the better"? Surely you weren't a parent there in both the 1980s and now 30 years later, were you? Sounds to me like you're making shit up.

Everyone knows this. I'm among many who have posted about it on this thread. I was a student there in the 80s and 90s and am now a parent who knows MANY people who send their kids there. Seriously, you're arguing the sky is not blue.

Before you get too nostalgic for the 80s and 90s, I remind you that, at that time, the teachers were paid below the 50th percentile as compared to peer schools, the facilities were shabby, less than 10% of students were supported by FA (versus 25% today) and the endowment was de minimis. If a strong recession had come along in the late 90s, like the one we had in 2007-2010, who knows how the school would have fared.

I also can't shake the hypocrisy of community members who conveniently forget the fact that the school had an explicit policy of only allowing one AA child per grade after Brown v. Ed and only started graduating Black children in the 70s.

Yes, the school has changed ENORMOUSLY, and for the better!

None of these race comments are relevant. Of course in some ways the school has changed for the better. But in terms of the social climbing nature of the parent community, it's been for the worse. At LEAST 5 posters, many of whom seem to be alums, are claiming this. Not sure why you're arguing with everyone about it.

Also, if you think the school is legitimately diverse, you're crazy. My mid 90s class was WAY more diverse - economically at least - than the current graduating classes.

But keep on drinking that Kool-Aid..

Why are the race comments irrelevant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was popular WELL BEFORE Chelsea went there. In the 80s, it was very sought after as well, and i'm sure before that too. it's a good school.

yes, it was. But as PP said, the parent community has changed ENORMOUSLY. And not for the better.

NP. How would you know "the parent community has changed enormously ... and not for the better"? Surely you weren't a parent there in both the 1980s and now 30 years later, were you? Sounds to me like you're making shit up.

Everyone knows this. I'm among many who have posted about it on this thread. I was a student there in the 80s and 90s and am now a parent who knows MANY people who send their kids there. Seriously, you're arguing the sky is not blue.

Before you get too nostalgic for the 80s and 90s, I remind you that, at that time, the teachers were paid below the 50th percentile as compared to peer schools, the facilities were shabby, less than 10% of students were supported by FA (versus 25% today) and the endowment was de minimis. If a strong recession had come along in the late 90s, like the one we had in 2007-2010, who knows how the school would have fared.

I also can't shake the hypocrisy of community members who conveniently forget the fact that the school had an explicit policy of only allowing one AA child per grade after Brown v. Ed and only started graduating Black children in the 70s.

Yes, the school has changed ENORMOUSLY, and for the better!

None of these race comments are relevant. Of course in some ways the school has changed for the better. But in terms of the social climbing nature of the parent community, it's been for the worse. At LEAST 5 posters, many of whom seem to be alums, are claiming this. Not sure why you're arguing with everyone about it.

Also, if you think the school is legitimately diverse, you're crazy. My mid 90s class was WAY more diverse - economically at least - than the current graduating classes.

But keep on drinking that Kool-Aid..

No Kool-Aid, just observable facts that you seem to lack, "because 5 posters who seem to be alums say it is so, it must be true." Better / worse is an opinion. And I am here to represent that their opinion is not universally held.

Your statement about a mid 90s class beyond way more diverse is just flat wrong.

Economically? Absolutely is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was popular WELL BEFORE Chelsea went there. In the 80s, it was very sought after as well, and i'm sure before that too. it's a good school.

yes, it was. But as PP said, the parent community has changed ENORMOUSLY. And not for the better.

NP. How would you know "the parent community has changed enormously ... and not for the better"? Surely you weren't a parent there in both the 1980s and now 30 years later, were you? Sounds to me like you're making shit up.

Everyone knows this. I'm among many who have posted about it on this thread. I was a student there in the 80s and 90s and am now a parent who knows MANY people who send their kids there. Seriously, you're arguing the sky is not blue.

Before you get too nostalgic for the 80s and 90s, I remind you that, at that time, the teachers were paid below the 50th percentile as compared to peer schools, the facilities were shabby, less than 10% of students were supported by FA (versus 25% today) and the endowment was de minimis. If a strong recession had come along in the late 90s, like the one we had in 2007-2010, who knows how the school would have fared.

I also can't shake the hypocrisy of community members who conveniently forget the fact that the school had an explicit policy of only allowing one AA child per grade after Brown v. Ed and only started graduating Black children in the 70s.

Yes, the school has changed ENORMOUSLY, and for the better!

None of these race comments are relevant. Of course in some ways the school has changed for the better. But in terms of the social climbing nature of the parent community, it's been for the worse. At LEAST 5 posters, many of whom seem to be alums, are claiming this. Not sure why you're arguing with everyone about it.

Also, if you think the school is legitimately diverse, you're crazy. My mid 90s class was WAY more diverse - economically at least - than the current graduating classes.

But keep on drinking that Kool-Aid..

Why are the race comments irrelevant?

Because no one said the school hasn't improved as far as racial relations are concerned (along with, you know, the rest of the universe). The discussion about the new money social climbing parents has nothing to do with race, and even the posters discussing that didn't say NOTHING has improved about the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was popular WELL BEFORE Chelsea went there. In the 80s, it was very sought after as well, and i'm sure before that too. it's a good school.

yes, it was. But as PP said, the parent community has changed ENORMOUSLY. And not for the better.

NP. How would you know "the parent community has changed enormously ... and not for the better"? Surely you weren't a parent there in both the 1980s and now 30 years later, were you? Sounds to me like you're making shit up.

Everyone knows this. I'm among many who have posted about it on this thread. I was a student there in the 80s and 90s and am now a parent who knows MANY people who send their kids there. Seriously, you're arguing the sky is not blue.

Before you get too nostalgic for the 80s and 90s, I remind you that, at that time, the teachers were paid below the 50th percentile as compared to peer schools, the facilities were shabby, less than 10% of students were supported by FA (versus 25% today) and the endowment was de minimis. If a strong recession had come along in the late 90s, like the one we had in 2007-2010, who knows how the school would have fared.

I also can't shake the hypocrisy of community members who conveniently forget the fact that the school had an explicit policy of only allowing one AA child per grade after Brown v. Ed and only started graduating Black children in the 70s.

Yes, the school has changed ENORMOUSLY, and for the better!

None of these race comments are relevant. Of course in some ways the school has changed for the better. But in terms of the social climbing nature of the parent community, it's been for the worse. At LEAST 5 posters, many of whom seem to be alums, are claiming this. Not sure why you're arguing with everyone about it.

Also, if you think the school is legitimately diverse, you're crazy. My mid 90s class was WAY more diverse - economically at least - than the current graduating classes.

But keep on drinking that Kool-Aid..

Why are the race comments irrelevant?

Because no one said the school hasn't improved as far as racial relations are concerned (along with, you know, the rest of the universe). The discussion about the new money social climbing parents has nothing to do with race, and even the posters discussing that didn't say NOTHING has improved about the school.

I am arguing that the posters who make the assertion that the parent community has changed enormously for the worse - and they are making this argument - do not get to reduce a complex picture into a single and simplistic axiom that there are more social climbers. Please. There are more international parents. Far more Asians and East Indians. More families of deep financial need. Better economic support from the community.

[Anonymous]

NP here. In what tangible ways has the quality of the educational experienced suffered because of the changing nature of the parent population? Genuinely curious, because most of these comments relate to the parents and frankly come across as insecure.